Md. Intekhab Alam @ Md. Intkhab @ Itkhab Alam Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88830 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2025 Thana- SAKRI District- Madhubani

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

Md. Intekhab Alam @ Md. Intkhab @ Itkhab Alam S/o Md. Kamrujjama R/o Village- Sakri Purani Bajar Ward No 3, PS- Sakari, District- Madhubani

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 06-01-2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sakri P.S. Case No. 198 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 21(c) and 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that 100 bottles syrup of Rexodex-T each of 100 ml containing codeine was recovered and 50 bottles of zudik cough syrup containing codeine was also recovered.

¶13

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. Petitioner is a licensee holder. Learned counsel for the

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88830 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026 2/4

¶15

petitioner has 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. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.10.2025.

¶16

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:-

¶17

“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:-

¶18

xxx

¶19

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

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88830 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026 3/4

¶21

concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparations and which have been established in Therapeutic practice.

¶22

xxx”

¶23

In this case, Rexodex-T cough Syrup and zudik cough syrup containing codeine phosphate and triprolidine hydrochloride have been recovered 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.

¶24

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 the petitioner is commercial quantity.

¶25

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.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88830 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026 4/4

¶28

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 Principal Sessions Judge, Madhubani in connection with Sakri P.S. Case No. 198 of 2025.

¶29

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶30

lata/-

¶31

U T

Md. Intekhab Alam @ Md. Intkhab @ Itkhab Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Intekhab Alam @ Md. Intkhab @ Itkhab Alam 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

Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar @ Manish @ Videsh @ Videsh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bacha Lal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rabi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Tabrej @ Tabrez Vs The State of Bihar