Patna High Court
Ranjit RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner on the condition of a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Ram, was arrested on 30 July 2025 in connection with a case under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of 118 bottles of codeine‑containing cough syrups. The prosecution alleged that the seized medicines, amounting to 11.8 litres, constituted contraband, while the defence argued that the petitioner had a clean record and that the seizure was not conducted in compliance with Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The defence further relied on Central Government Notification S.O. 826(E) dated 14 November 1985, which permits codeine preparations with a concentration not exceeding 2.5%, contending that the seized syrups (≈0.2% codeine) fell within permissible limits and thus should be dealt with under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, not the NDPS Act. The court considered the low concentration, the non‑commercial quantity, and the procedural lapses in the seizure, and found no compelling reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the possession of codeine‑containing cough syrups in the quantity seized attracts liability under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the seizure complied with the procedural requirements of Section 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
- Whether the concentration of codeine (0.2%) falls within the exemption under Central Government Notification S.O. 826(E) and thus the case should be governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act instead of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering his clean antecedent and the non‑commercial nature of the seized quantity.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- codeine
- drug seizure
- Section 105
- commercial quantity
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- central government notification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89102 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2025 Thana- MAJORGANJ District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ranjit Ram S/o Kodai Ram R/o village - Madhubani, P.S. - Dumaria @
Dumariya, Dist. - Sarlahi Nepal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-03-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
30.07.2025 in connection with Majorganj P.S. Case No. 299 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 29.07.2025 for the offences punishable under
Section 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that from
possession of this petitioner, Wincerex (Codeine Phosphate &
Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup) 88 nos and Onrex (Codeine
Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup) 30 nos total 118
pieces each of 100 ml was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89102 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
2/4
implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR/seizure
list that 118 pieces of 100 ml total 11.800 litres of intoxicated
medicines were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
There is no independent witness of the seizure list rather they
are police personnel. Police has not followed Section 105 of
BNSS while making seizure. He further submits that the police
after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
Central Government has issued Notificiation No. S.O. 826 (E)
dated 14.11.1985 which is given hereunder:-
“S.O. 826(E). - In exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-clause (b) of clause (xi) of
section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of
1985), the Central Government hereby
declares the following narcotic substances
and preparations to be manufactured drugs,
namely:-
xxx
35. Methyl morphine (commonly known as
'Codeine') and Ethyle morphine and their salts
(including Dionine), all dilutions and
preparations except those which are
compounded with one or more other ingredients
and containing not more than 100 milligrams of
the drug per dosage unit, and with a
concentration of not more than 2.5% in
undivided preparations and which have been
established in Therapeutic practice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89102 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
3/4
xxx”
5. In this case, Onerax cough Syrup has been
recovered and the concentration of the codeine in this drug is
approximately 0.2% which is less than 2.5% as provided in the
above notification. From bare perusal of said notification which
suggest that the petitioner has only violated the Drugs and
Cosmetic act and the case of the petitioner comes under purview
of Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent and the fact that the
recovered contraband is less than commercial quantity, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned
Special Judge, Sitamarhi/Competent Jurisdiction, in connection
with Majorganj P.S. Case No. 299 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89102 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
4/4
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…