Patna High Court's Strict Stance on Narcotics: No Bail for Codeine Possession

Nationwide Drug Policing

Posted by AI on 2025-09-26 11:31:10 | Last Updated by AI on 2025-12-09 13:43:48

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 18


Patna High Court's Strict Stance on Narcotics: No Bail for Codeine Possession

In a move that underscores the stringent approach to narcotics regulation, the Patna High Court has denied bail to Nilendra Kumar Karan Nilendra, arrested for possessing codeine-based cough syrup. This decision comes as a stark reminder of the court's zero-tolerance policy towards drug-related offenses, even for substances with relatively low concentrations of controlled substances.

The case unfolded at the Indo-Nepal border, where authorities intercepted a vehicle carrying 40 bottles of codeine phosphate Triprolidine Hydrochloride cough syrup. The quantity, deemed commercial, led to the arrest of Nilendra and another individual. Justice Jitendra Kumar's ruling emphasized that the possession of codeine syrup, regardless of its concentration, falls under the purview of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, not the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This interpretation of the law is a significant factor in the court's decision to deny bail.

The defense argued that the cough syrup contained less than 2.5% codeine, referencing the Allahabad High Court's Vibhor Rana case. However, Justice Kumar distinguished this case, stating that it had not considered specific rules and notifications. The court's comprehensive analysis of statutory provisions and case law led to a rejection of the bail application, citing the commercial quantity of the seized substance and the need for stringent measures.

This ruling has far-reaching implications, setting a precedent for similar cases and reinforcing the message that narcotics offenses will be dealt with severely. The Patna High Court's decision highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing public health needs with strict drug control measures, leaving the public and legal community alike to ponder the boundaries of these regulations.