Kanhaiya kumar @ Golu Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39866 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kanhaiya kumar @ Golu Chaudhary S/o Late Navin Chaudhary R/o vill - Pipra, P.S.- Chautham, Distt.- Khagaria

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

9 17-12-2025

The State of Bihar ===================	... ... Opposite Party ===================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Siddartha Prasad, Advocate Mr. Swetang Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shantam Kriti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : ===================	Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ===================================
CORAM: HONOURABL	E MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶11

for the State.

¶12

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii) (A)/21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that from the possession of this petitioner, altogether 300 grams of ganja, 2.4 liters (24 bottles each of 100 ml) of codeine phosphate and triprolidine HCL RTXscen syrup and Blurex-T syrup containing triprolidine hydrochloride and codeine phosphate amounting to 3.300 liters( 33 bottles each of 100 ml) were recovered.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39866 of 2025(9) dt.17-12-2025 2/4

¶16

been implicated in this case. Police has not followed the necessary provisions of Section 105 of B.N.S.S. while making seizure. As far as recovery of ganja is concerned, the same is smaller quantity as per N.D.P.S. Act. There is no independent witnesses of the seizure list rather they are police personnel. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15.03.2025.

¶17

As far as recovery of Blurex-T syrup and RTX-scen syrup containing codeine are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Central Government has issued Notification No. S.O. 826(E) dated 14.11.1985 which is given hereunder:-

¶18

“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:-

¶19

xxx

¶20

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

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39866 of 2025(9) dt.17-12-2025 3/4

¶22

established in Therapeutic practice.

¶23

xxx”

¶24

In this case, Blurex-T syrup and RTX-scen syrup containing codeine have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the concentration of the codeine in these drugs is approximately 0.2% which is less than 2.5% as provided in the above notification.

¶25

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 this petitioner is commercial quantity.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 released on bail in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39866 of 2025(9) dt.17-12-2025 4/4

¶29

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Khagaria.

¶30

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶31

Shubham/-

¶32

U T

Kanhaiya kumar @ Golu Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya kumar @ Golu Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shankar Lal Agrawal Vs Sri Nimai Chand Das

Urmila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Rina Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Durgesh Yadav @ Durgesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar