Patna High Court
Yugal Kishore SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the seized quantity is below the small‑quantity threshold and no embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies.
Summary
The petitioner Yugal Kishore Singh was arrested on 23 May 2025 in connection with an FIR under Sections 8, 21(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing codeine‑containing cough syrup. A seizure of 1,190 bottles (119 L) yielded only 4.76 g of codeine, which the petitioner’s counsel argued is below the statutory ‘small quantity’ threshold, rendering Section 37’s embargo inapplicable. The State opposed bail, citing two other pending drug‑related cases, though the petitioner was already on bail in those matters. The Court examined the quantity, the statutory provisions, and the lack of a legal embargo, and concluded that bail could be granted. Accordingly, the Court ordered release on bail with a Rs 10,000 bond and specified conditions regarding trial attendance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when the seized narcotic quantity is less than the statutory ‘small quantity’ and thus no embargo under Section 37 applies
- Whether the existence of other pending drug‑related cases bars the grant of bail in the present case
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21, 25, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- small quantity
- codeine
- drug offence
- Section 37 embargo
- excise seizure
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91022 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Banka
======================================================
Yugal Kishore Singh Son of Late Bachneshwar Prasad Singh Resident of
Village- Khiddi, P.S.- Rajoun, Distt.- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari, Advocate
: Mr.Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 30-03-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
make necessary correction in paragraph-7 of the 3rd
supplementary affidavit.
2. Heard Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Asha Kumari, learned A.P.P.
for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
23.05.2025 in connection with Excise P.S. Banka Case No. 230
of 2025, F.I.R. dated 22.05.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 8,21(c),25 of N.D.P.S.Act.
4. Recovery is 1190 bottles of 100 ml in ten boxes
(119 liter) of RJT-SCEN Cough Linctus (Codeine Phosphate
and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91022 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
2/4
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant
has got information that the petitioner has kept illegal codeine
syrup in his medical shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that it appears from the FIR as well as the seizure list
that altogether 1190 bottles of 100 ml in ten boxes (119 liter) of
RJT-SCEN Cough Linctus (Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine
Hydrochloride Syrup) was recovered form the shop of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
calculation that altogether 4.76 Gm of Narcotic contents was
found, which is mentioned in paragraph-7 of 3 rd supplementary
affidavit and the same is quoted here in below:-
“7. That, the total number of bottles allegedly
recovered is 1190 bottles, each having a capacity
of 100 ml., the correct calculation of codeine
content would therefore be as follows:
1190x100ml=119000 ml.
:In 100 ml.-4 mg. Codeine.
:119000x4 100
:4760 ml.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91022 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
3/4
:4760 1000
=4.76 grams.”
In view of the aforesaid, the recovered contraband is
even less than the small quantity. Hence, there is no embargo
under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.Act for grant of bail to the
petitioner and the police, after investigation, submitted
chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody
since 23.05.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries two more cases other than the
present one of similar nature but fairly submits that the
petitioner is on bail in both the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of
the bail petition.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and the recovered
contraband is even less than the small 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 learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Banka in connection with Excise P.S. Banka
Case No. 230 of 2025, with the following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91022 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
4/4
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her 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)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…