Patna High Court
CR. MISC./30179/2026 of Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar on 22 June 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30179 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- Banma Itahari District- Saharsa ====================================================== Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav S/o- Sri Prakash Yadav R/v - Dhab, Ward No.09, P.S - Simri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30179 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- Banma Itahari District- Saharsa ======================================================
Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav S/o- Sri Prakash Yadav R/v - Dhab, Ward No.09, P.S - Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Banma Ithari P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that from a car, altogether 107.3 liters of Wiscof Cough Syrup containing codeine was recovered.
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. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is neither the driver nor the owner of the said car. He is merely co-passenger in that car. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the seizure list, it will transpire that the seizure witnesses are not independent witness rather they are police personnel. Police has also not followed the provision of Section 105 of B.N.S.S. while making seizure. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 03.02.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 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. In this case, Wiscof Cough Syrup has been recovered from a car and the concentration of the codeine in this drugs is approximately 0.2% which is less than 2.5% as provided in the above notification.
7. 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 form the possession of this petitioner is commercial quantity.
8. 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.
9. 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 Exclusive Special (Excise) Judge-I, Saharsa in connection with Banma Ithari P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026.
lata/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T