Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30179 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- Banma Itahari District- Saharsa

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 22-06-2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

APP for the State.

¶13

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.

¶14

The case of the prosecution in short is that from a car, altogether 107.3 liters of Wiscof Cough Syrup containing codeine was recovered.

¶15

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

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30179 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 2/4

¶17

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.

¶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.30179 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 3/4

¶20

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.

¶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

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30179 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 4/4

¶25

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.

¶26

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶27

lata/- U T

Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav 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

Surjeet Sada @ Surjeet Kumar Sada @ Hanthkatta Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Aryan Kumar @ Aryan Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dry Sahani @ Darai Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Sahil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar @ Arbind Paswan Vs The State of Bihar