Dismissed

Md. Mofil v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 May 2025CR. MISC./6937/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application of a petitioner accused under Sections 21(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate. The Court held that the statutory conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied and cited precedent that length of custody is not a ground for granting bail in NDPS cases.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected.

Md. Mofil Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6937 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2024 Thana- Sri Nagar District- Purnia

¶3

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

¶4

Md. Mofil, aged about 26 years, Male, S/o Md. Khalil, R/o VillageKadgama, Ward No. 08, PS- Srinagar, Distt- Purnea

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dinesh Singh,A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 13-05-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Srinagar

¶15

P.S. Case No. 93 of 2024 dated 06.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 (c) and 22 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, police recovered 4.6 litres of Rx-Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine HCI Syrup P-KUFF, kept in white colour plastic bag. It is further alleged that local people told police that the said house belonged to the petitioner who brought cough syrup containing Codeine. The petitioner sells it from his house.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6937 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/4

¶19

the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner was not arrested on the spot. His name has surfaced in the present case on the basis of disclosure made by the local people. There is no statutory compliance under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. He has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 10.12.2024.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner and has further submitted that the seized contraband is commercial quantity i.e., 4.6 litres of Rx-Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine HCI Syrup P- Kuff containing Codeine and the petitioner has no any valid authorization for keeping the same. It is further submitted that this case comes under the N.D.P.S. Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act as per Section 80 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned A.P.P. for the State has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Hira Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr, (2020) 20 Supreme Court Cases 272 of Hon’ble Apex Court in which it has been held that “weight of entire materials/mixture alongwtih neutral material is to be considered for ascertainment

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6937 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 3/4

¶22

of whether the quantity is “small quantity” or “commercial quantity”. It is further submitted that codeine is mentioned in the Entry No. 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Methyle Morphine is commonly known as codeine. The act of the petitioner amounts to clear violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. Act as it clearly prohibits possession of narcotic substance except medical and scientific purposes.

¶23

As per Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act., the two conditions are that the Court should be satisfied with:-

¶24

(i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and

¶25

(ii) He is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶26

If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. The Court is of the opinion that the parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act have not satisfied in the facts of the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891 has held that “The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6937 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 4/4

¶28

trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.”

¶29

Considering the aforesaid facts and

¶30

circumstances of the case and finding substance in the contention of the learned A.P.P. for the State as well the recovery of commercial quantity from the possession of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Srinagar P.S. Case No. 93 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Purnea.

¶31

The application stands rejected.

¶32

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.

¶33

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶34

U.K./- U T

Md. Mofil v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mofil v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitu Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Kanchan Devi @ Kanchan Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sukhendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Sahni Vs The State of Bihar