Patna High Court Grants Bail in Codeine Cough Syrup Case, Says Such Cases Belong Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Not NDPS Act
The Patna High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case involving the recovery of 484 litres of Cough Linctur RJT-SCEN syrup containing codeine. The court observed that cases involving the recovery of cough syrup containing codeine should be filed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, not the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The single bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey was hearing a bail application in a case registered under Sections 21(c), 8(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that under Notification No. S.O. 826(E) dated November 14, 1985, preparations containing codeine are exempted as manufactured drugs if the codeine concentration is within the permitted limit under Entry No. 35. The petitioner claimed that the recovered Cough Linctur RJT-SCEN syrup had a codeine concentration of less than 2.5%, as specified in the notification, and therefore the matter fell only under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The court agreed that the drug in question was not a narcotic drug and that there was no jurisdictional basis for the case. It directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Khagaria.
In its order, the bench said, "Before parting, it is very strange that the cases where cough syrups containing codeine are recovered, the police is invariably filing cases under N.D.P.S. Act whereas in view of the notification of Central Government (supra) concentration of codeine being less than 2.5 %, the quantity does not come under the ambit of contraband. Cough syrup containing codeine is only a Schedule-H drug for which, the shopkeeper has to maintain register and he must be a licensed one. Such type of cases should be filed under Drugs and Cosmetic Act. It is only the violation of Drugs and Cosmetic Act whereas, police is invariably misusing the procedure."
Advocate Vijay Kishore Bharti represented the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Surendra Prasad Singh appeared for the opposite party. The case is titled Bharat Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 60727 of 2026).
Source: Verdictum