Bail Denied for Seizure of Commercial Quantity of Psychotropic Cough Syrup Under NDPS Act.

The applicant, Nandan Mishra, was apprehended on 25.08.2025 near Sondongari Pond following an informant’s tip regarding the illegal transportation of Tuscorex Cough Syrup.

Upon search, police recovered 30 bottles (3000 ml) from the applicant’s bag and additional quantities from a co-accused, totaling 10,000 ml (10 liters) of the psychotropic substance.

The applicant moved this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, contending he was falsely implicated, the recovery was from an open place, and citing parity with co-accused persons already granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering the quantity of contraband seized and the pending nature of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 21(C) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribe stringent punishment for the possession and conspiracy involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances.

The court also operated under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations and the specific recovery made from the applicant.

While the applicant argued false implication and parity, the court observed that 30 bottles were seized directly from his possession, and the total seizure from the joint possession of the accused persons amounted to 10 liters.

This quantity significantly exceeds the "commercial quantity" threshold defined under the NDPS Act.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession of the contraband and noted that the trial was already in progress following the submission of the charge-sheet.

Consequently, the seriousness of the offence and the statutory rigors associated with commercial quantities outweighed the arguments for bail at this stage.

It held that given the recovery of a commercial quantity of a prohibited substance, the applicant's involvement could not be dismissed as false implication at this stage.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and ordered a certified copy of the order to be sent to the trial court for compliance.