Excess Codeine Stock: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to Two in Cough Syrup Case

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the bail plea of two men in a case involving the seizure of 11,885 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup from Rampur, holding that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were clearly attracted in view of the commercial quantity involved.

The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed the order in criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by Abdul Qadir and Ahsan Noori. The applicants are accused in a 2025 case, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act and Sections 318(4) (corresponding to Section 420, IPC), 338 (corresponding to Section 467, IPC), 336(3) (corresponding to Section 468, IPC) and 340 (corresponding to Section 470, IPC) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

According to the prosecution, 119 boxes containing 11,885 bottles of CODECTUS TR syrup, a preparation containing Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate, were recovered while being loaded into a car from the house of co-accused Anees. Two alleged fake Aadhaar cards were also seized. While Anees allegedly fled in a Swift car, the present applicants were apprehended at the spot.

The applicants had been in custody since September 8, 2025. Their earlier bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Act), Rampur on October 17, 2025.

Before the high court, the accused's counsel argued that Ahsan Noori is a licensed wholesale drug dealer and proprietor of Azad Surgical and Medical Agency. He was granted a valid drug licence on September 1, 2025, effective till August 31, 2028. It was contended that the seized stock had been ordered through valid invoices and that Codeine-based syrup falls within the exemption provided under the Central Government notification dated November 14, 1985.

The counsel for the accused submitted that under the notification, preparations containing not more than 100 mg of Codeine per dosage unit and not exceeding 2.5% concentration in undivided preparations, when established in therapeutic practice, do not attract penal provisions of the NDPS Act. It was further argued that no chemical examination report was available to ascertain the actual Codeine content and that sampling procedures were defective.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the plea, contending that the recovery was made from premises not covered by the licence issued to the applicant. It was also submitted that even assuming the licence to be valid, the quantity seized far exceeded the permissible stocking limits prescribed under a notification dated August 15, 2022 issued by the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drugs. As per the notification, a wholesaler could stock a maximum of 1,000 bottles, whereas 11,885 bottles were seized.

Court observed that Codeine is included within the definition of ‘opium derivative’ and consequently a ‘manufactured drug’ and ‘narcotic drug’ under the NDPS Act. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of Assam (2012), court held that the exemption under the 1985 notification is conditional and must be strictly complied with, including the requirement that the preparation be established in therapeutic practice.

Court further noted that dealing in narcotic drugs, even for medical purposes, must strictly conform to the manner and extent prescribed under the Act and the Rules, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev Deshpande (2014).

Taking note of the seizure of 11,885 bottles, which is far above commercial quantity, the high court held that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied. At the bail stage, court was unable to form an opinion that the accused were not guilty of the offence.

Holding that no ground for bail was made out in view of the gravity of the offence and severity of punishment, court rejected the bail application, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not affect the trial.

Case Title: Abdul Qadir And Another vs. State of U.P.

Order Date: February 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Ashutosh Srivastava