Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010165702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2451/2025 NUR ALOM HUSSAIN @ RATUL S/O- ALI HUSSAIN. R/O- VILL.- BHERBHERI, P.S.- BATADRAVA, DIST.-NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, A SAHA,MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 25.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, namely, Nur Alom Hussain @ Ratul, who has been detained Page No.# 2/7 behind the bars since 08.06.2025 in connection with the Batadrava P. S. Case No. 74/2025 registered under Section 61(2)/123 of BNS read with Section 22(b)(ii)(C)/27(b)/29/8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 08.06.2025, one Deep Jyoti Baruah, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Batadrava Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on that day an information was received through reliable source that one Nur Alom Hussain (the petitioner) is dealing with narcotic substance. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and it reached the house of the petitioner and on thorough search his house, 17 numbers of bottles of Tripolodine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup, Tuscorex Cough Syrup, containing 100 ml in each were recovered from the back side of a house of the petitioner near the bathroom. Along with the aforesaid contraband, a cash amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- was also recovered there from. The petitioner was, accordingly, apprehended. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested in this case at around 4.20 pm and at that time nothing was recovered from his house. Subsequently, the police team visited the house of the petitioner and allegedly recovered the contraband at about 12.20 am. She also submits that at the time of seizure, none of the family members of the petitioner were present at his home. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantity of the Codeine Phosphate in the recovered contraband was 0.2% only, therefore, it falls outside the purview of the definition of Page No.# 3/7 “manufactured drugs” under the Notification issued by the Union Government, pertaining to the manufactured drugs. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Entry No. 35 of the Notification No. SO 826(E) dated 14.11.1985, it has been provided that Methyl morphine (commonly known as Codeine) and Ethyl morphine and their salt (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 drugs per dosage unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparation and which have been established in therapeutic practice may be recorded as manufactured narcotic drugs. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the seized contraband each 5 ml of cough syrup contains 10mg of codeine. She further submits that the total seizures in this case is of 17 numbers of bottles the total quantity of codeine in the seized contraband would be 3.4 grams, which would come approximately 0.2% of the undivided preparation and thus, she submits that the same would not fall within the definition of manufactured drugs as per Entry No. 35 of the Notification No. SO 826(E) dated 14.11.1985. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said cough syrup was prescribed by the doctors to the parents of the petitioner. She further submits that as the parents of the petitioner were planning to go for pilgrimage to Mecca, the said quantity of cough syrup were purchased by the petitioner for therapeutic use of his parents. Page No.# 4/7 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of the contraband as alleged in the FIR is its doubtful as same was not recovered when the petitioner was apprehended at 4.15 pm, but was recovered later on. 10. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings: i. Iqbal Singh Vs State reported in 2021 1 JCC 386 ii. Vibhor Rana Vs Union of India reported in 2021 SCC Online Allahabad 908 iii.Saddam Hossain Vs State of West Bengal reported in MANU- SCOR-62782/2024 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. 12. He further submits that the exact quantity of codeine phosphate contained in each bottle of the cough syrup which was recovered may be ascertained only after receipt of the forensic laboratory report of the contraband. 13. He further submits that the quantity of codeine shown in column No. 5 and 6 of the table of the notification of this Central Government in respect Page No.# 5/7 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance shall apply to entire mixture or any solution and not just its pure drug content. 14. He further submits that Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued a notification No. SO 1181 (E) dated 05.05.2025 and made codeine as essential narcotic drug. 15. He further submits that in the instant case, the fact that the cough syrup containing codeine were recovered from the house of the petitioner near the bathroom itself shows that the said cough syrups were not purchased by the petitioner for therapeutic use as claimed by him. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Batadrava P. S. Case No. 74/2025, which was requisitioned in connection with this Bail Application. 17. On perusal of the seizure list prepared after recovery of the contraband from the house of the present petitioner, it appears that the total 17 numbers of Tuscorex cough syrup, containing codeine phosphate were recovered from the back side of the house nearby bathroom of the present petitioner. Though, the place of the recovery has not been shown in detail in the seizure list and it has been only mentioned therein that the place of seizure is at Bher Bheri. However, the name and the address of the present petitioner are mentioned in Column No. 3 of the seizure list, where the names and particulars of the person from whom at the place where seizure has been made has to be stated. Page No.# 6/7 18. Though, in the seizure list, the exact location from where the contraband was recovered, has not been stated, however, in the FIR it has been clearly stated that on thorough search of the house and the premises of the present petitioner the 17 numbers of cough syrup bottles containing 100 ml each were recovered nearby bathroom from the back side of the house of the petitioner. The place of the recovery of the contraband itself belies the submission that the said contraband were purchased on medical prescription for therapeutic use of the parents of the petitioner. Had it been so, the cough syrup would not have been kept near the bathroom behind the house of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no prescription suggesting the purchase of 17 numbers of bottles of cough syrup at one go for the therapeutic use of the parents of the petitioner. The story projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the parents of the petitioners were going for pilgrimage to Mecca, 17 numbers of cough syrup bottles were purchased to take the same to Mecca is not believable. 19. Moreover, the exact quantity of codeine phosphate contained in the seized contraband can only be ascertained after a proper forensic examination of the samples sent to the forensic laboratory. However, in the instant case, the report of forensic laboratory is yet to be received. Hence, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized contraband does not come within the purview of the definition of the “manufactured drug” as per Notification No. SO 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 cannot be ascertained at this stage. 20. Prima facie, it appears that the contraband seized in this case contain codeine phosphate and the quantity of contraband is of commercial Page No.# 7/7 quantity. Hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 is not applicable in this case at this stage. 21. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. 22. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant