Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail To 17 ‘Main Accused’ In Codeine Syrup Cases, Grants Relief To Drivers, Helpers

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail applications of 17 alleged 'masterminds' in cases concerning the illegal storage, transportation and sale of codeine-based cough syrups, while granting bail to truck drivers, helpers and small retailers who, the court found, were not shown to have knowingly participated in diverting the medicines for use as intoxicants.

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the common judgment on September 1, 2026, while deciding 77 bail applications together.

Court held that codeine-based cough syrup does not attract the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act when it is being handled for legitimate medical purposes, but the statutory protection is lost when the medicine is diverted, stocked or sold for intoxication.

Court rejected the bail pleas of, among others, Bhola Prasad of Saili Traders, Divesh Jaiswal of DSA Pharma, Ankush Singh of Mahakal Medical, Abhinav Kumar Yadav, Badal Arya and Harsh Agrawal. The prosecution case against the principal accused involved allegations of fake firms, forged invoices and e-way bills and the diversion of large quantities of cough syrup to destinations outside the legitimate pharmaceutical supply chain.

Court drew a distinction between the principal operators allegedly involved in the diversion network and those whose role was limited to transporting or handling consignments.

Court noted that against Bhola Prasad, the proprietor of Saili Traders in Ranchi, the prosecution alleged that two firms in Sonbhadra had purchased around 7.53 lakh bottles of New Phensedyl from his firm between April 2024 and August 2025.

Court also considered material showing how large consignments were allegedly moved through paper transactions. In one connected case, around 3.39 lakh bottles purchased from Saili Traders were shown as having been sold onwards, but the e-way bills mentioned vehicles such as e-rickshaws, an ambulance, government vehicles and other vehicles that were either unsuitable for transporting the consignments or did not exist. Some of the same batches were later recovered in Tripura and West Bengal.

In case of Divesh Jaiswal, court found him prima facie involved in opening fake firms and arranging forged invoices. Against Ankush Singh, court found prima facie diversion of 5.21 lakh bottles of New Phensedyl. Court also found prima facie involvement of Abhinav Kumar Yadav in diverting 2,25,999 bottles.

However, court found a different position in cases involving drivers who were carrying sealed consignments.

In the case of Rehan Alam Raeen, court granted bail after noting that he was allegedly driving a car carrying 200 bottles of cough syrup packed in sealed cardboard boxes. There was no material showing that he knew what the cartons contained or that the medicine was being transported for a non-medical purpose. He also had no criminal history and the chargesheet had been filed.

Similarly, truck driver Sushil Yadav was granted bail in a case involving 15,300 bottles of Eskuf. Court noted that the bottles were packed in bags and cartons and found that there was no material to show that the driver could have known their contents.

Dharmendra Kumar Singh, another truck driver, was granted bail in a case involving 41,100 bottles. Court again relied on the fact that the bottles were packed in cartons and that there was no material showing that he knew the nature of the consignment. His lack of criminal antecedents and the filing of the chargesheet were also considered.

Court also granted bail to Panjab Singh, from whose godown 5,640 bottles of Onerex had allegedly been recovered. It found that the material on record was not sufficient at the bail stage to establish his conscious involvement in the alleged illegal transportation or trafficking.

On the legal issue, court examined Entry 35 of the notification governing codeine preparations. It held that a preparation containing codeine within the prescribed limits and established in therapeutic practice can remain outside the NDPS Act when it is dealt with as a medicine.

That, however, would not protect a person who diverts the preparation for intoxication. Court said the exemption is tied to the therapeutic use of the preparation and cannot be used to justify an illicit supply chain. The same principle would apply where fake firms, bogus invoices or other material show that medicines were being moved for a non-medical purpose.

Court further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Hira Singh v Union of India (2020) to hold that, in such cases, the quantity of the entire cough-syrup preparation has to be considered rather than merely the quantity of pure codeine. Where the total preparation exceeds one kilogram, court said, the commercial-quantity provisions and the restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply.

Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, offences under the statute are cognizable and non-bailable, with the provision laying down stringent twin conditions that must be met before bail can be granted, particularly where commercial quantities are involved.

At the same time, the high court cautioned against treating every violation of pharmaceutical regulations as an NDPS offence. It observed that a routine sale of permitted codeine cough syrup by a medical retailer without a prescription would ordinarily constitute a violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The position changes, however, where unusually large quantities are sold within a short period, indicating knowledge that the medicine is being diverted for non-medical use.

Case Title: Bhola Prasad & Connected Matters v. State of U.P.

Order Date: September 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal