Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1103 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

Ajay Kumar Thakur S/O Rajeshwar Thakur R/O Village- Karmegh Laukaha, P.S- Laukaha, P.S- Laukaha, District - Madhubani.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 05-02-2026

¶11

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned senior

¶12

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 158 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii)/28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act and Sections 20/21/22 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from the possession of this petitioner and one another altogether 20 bottles of Codeine cough syrup (Onerex and Wixdin) and 43 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus were recovered from two yellow sacks.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1103 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 2/4

¶17

committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. The witness of the seizure list are police personnel and the police have not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He further submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 21.09.2025.

¶18

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.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1103 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 3/4

¶20

In this case, Onerex Cough Syrup has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the concentration of the codeine in this drug is less than 2.5% as provided in the above notification.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1103 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 4/4

¶25

of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madhubani in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 158 of 2025.

¶26

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶27

Sudhanshu/-

¶28

U T

Ajay Kumar Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Thakur 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

Munna Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Singh @ Baba Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Biresh Yadav @ Brish Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Tarun Kumar Vs The Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, Patna.