(Prayer :- For Bail in Cr.No.396 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.)

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.07.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act and 21(1)(A) of the Arms Act in Cr.No.396 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was in possession of (1) Abbott – Triprolidine Hydro chloride and Codeine Phosphate Cough Syrup 120ml – 7 bottles, (2) CODISTAR-NF – Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine hydro chloride Syrup 100ml – 5 bottles and (3) Eskuf – Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine hydro chloride Syrup 100ml – 1 bottle alleged to be prohibited drugs without any proper permission or licence and the said contraband came to be seized and on that basis, the present case came to be registered.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitoner is innocent and that he has not committed any offence as alleged and that he has been falsely implicated in the above case. The learned Counsel would further submit that the cough syrup allegedly recovered contained codeine phosphate only to the extent of 10mg/ml corresponding to the concentration about 0.2%, which is well below 2.5% and therefore, the provison of NDPS Act cannot be made applicable, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 17.07.2026 and that he has no previous case or criminal antecedents.

4. The respondent police has filed counter affidavit.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the cough syrup containing codeine phosphate was possessed without any licence or authorisation and that the mere fact that the concentration is below 2.5%, would not by itself take the seizure contraband outside the purview of the NDPS Act. He would further submit that the petitioner is having 23 previous cases out of which one case for similar offence registered in 2022.

6. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in A.M.Manikandan Vs. the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai in Crl.O.P.21592 of 2019, dated 30.06.2022, wherein this Court while considering the quashment petition of a complaint, referred to the exemption granted by the Union of India under Notification No.SO826E dated 14.11.1985, wherein any medical preparation with Codeine, classified as 'H' Schedule drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are exempted from the purview of NDPS Act, provided the preparation contains less than 2.5% of undivided preparations and which have been established in the therapeutic practice.

7. After reserving the above petition for orders, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a copy of the Chemical Analysis report received in the present case, wherein it shows that the sample of cough syrup contains Codeine Phosphate I.P. 10Mg per ml along with triprolidine Hydrocholoride. In the present case, the alleged recovery contains of 7 bottles of 120ml each, 5 bottles of 100ml each and one bottle 100ml, aggregate to 1440 ml cough syrup. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has not shown that the quantity involved is of commercial quantity and as such, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act gets attracted.

8. Considering the above, this Court is constrained to say that the question as to whether the seized contraband would fall within the exemption relating to Codeine preparation and the consequential applicability of the provisions of the NDPS Act are the matter which require consideration on the basis of evidence adduced during trial and giving any finding at this stage may prejudice either side.

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the contraband allegedly seized, the composition reflected in the chemical analysis report and also the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 17.07.2026, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted and that therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

10. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul District;

                          (i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

                          (ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

                          (iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness;

                          (iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial;

                          (v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

                                (vi) If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS, 2023.