Valid drug licence and small codeine quantity warranted bail in the NDPS prosecution.

The petitioner sought regular bail in Bhelahi P.S. Case No. 79 of 2026, registered on 21 June 2026 under Sections 21(b), 23(b), and 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of twelve 100 ml bottles of Onrex cough syrup and 260 Tramadol tablets, treated as NDPS materials.

The petitioner had been in custody since 22 June 2026 and claimed clean antecedents.

He further relied on a drug-sale licence issued in his name in Form 20-B under Rule 61(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, valid until 30 June 2026.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the licence covered drugs other than those specified in Schedules C, C(1), and X of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of Onrex cough syrup and Tramadol tablets, considering his valid drug licence, the nature of the medicines, and the claimed quantity of codeine.

Whether the petitioner’s custody since 22 June 2026, clean antecedents, and the circumstances surrounding the licence and recovered drugs justified the grant of bail.

The Court considered Sections 21(b), 23(b), and 24 of the NDPS Act, 1985, concerning offences relating to manufactured drugs or preparations and other contraventions under the Act.

It also considered Form 20-B issued under Rule 61(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which authorises the sale, stocking, exhibition, offering for sale, or wholesale distribution of specified drugs.

Rules 65 and 97 of those Rules require prescription-based sale of Schedule H1 drugs.

The Court further noted the petitioner’s reliance on Sections 65-A and 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985, as stated in the judgment, concerning the lawful sale, use, and possession of psychotropic substances in accordance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

Bail was granted subject to Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing the prescribed bond.

The Court assessed the bail application in light of the petitioner’s claim that he was a licensed drug-shop owner and that his licence remained valid on the date of the FIR, 21 June 2026.

It also considered the submission that the recovered substances were Schedule H1 medicines, whose sale was subject to prescription requirements, and that the quantity of codeine in the cough syrup was below the small quantity prescribed under the NDPS regime.

Although the State contended that the licence did not cover drugs falling within Schedules C, C(1), and X, the Court found the overall circumstances, including the petitioner’s clean antecedents and custody since 22 June 2026, sufficient to justify release on bail.

The order did not finally determine the legality of the possession or the applicability of the statutory licence; those matters were left for adjudication in the criminal proceedings.

Shivbrat Kumar be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹30,000, with sureties, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Bhelahi P.S. Case No. 79 of 2026.

Bail was made subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.