Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5128 (PAT)

Ali Murtaza @ Md. Ali Murtaza v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./15514/2026 · 2026-02-26

Ashok Kumar Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15514 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- R S P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== Ali Murtaza @ Md. Ali Murtaza Son of Azim @ Md. Azim Uddin Resident of Ward No 10, Mohani PS -Baunsi District -Araria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with R.S. P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of NDPS Act and Section 111(1) of BNS. 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the confessional statement of the co-accused altogether 59 liters of cough syrup containing codeine was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has further submitted that he has no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15514 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 2/4 concern in any way with the alleged contraband. There is no independent witness of the seizure list. Police has not complied section 105 of BNSS while preparing seizure. It has further been submitted that though police have stated that cough syrup containing codeine was recovered but has not mentioned brand name. Without brand name it cannot be asserted as to what was the concentration of codeine in the said cough syrup. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.11.2025. Learned counsel has also submitted that similarly situated other co- accused person has already been granted bail by this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 4819 of 2026. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under Notification No. S.O. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Rules, 1985 that preparations are exempted as manufactured drugs provided the preparations contained the narcotic drugs to the extent permitted in respect of codeine under Entry No. 35. It is stated that codeine and ethyle morphine and their salts including dionine all dilutions and preparations are considered to be manufactured drugs except those which are compounded with one or more other ingredients Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15514 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 3/4 and containing not more than 100 miligrams of the drugs per doses unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5 % in undivided preparations and which have been established in therapeutic practice. 6. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently the application for bail and has submitted that in the case of Hira Singh and Anr. V. Union of India and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that entire non-toxic material which is mixed with the contraband will be considered as the contraband and as such, the quantity which has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners is commercial quantity. 7. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that in view of Section 2(d) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the drug itself is not narcotic drug then there is no jurisdictional basis for the case and the Court would not have a reason to go into the question of quantities. The Central Government has power to issue notification time to time. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15514 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 4/4 Judge, NDPS Act, Araria in connection with R.S. P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025. abhishek/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T