NDPS bail restrictions apply where prima facie illegal supply of codeine syrup and related drugs is shown despite drug-rule arguments.

Prima facie illegal sale and supply of codeine-based syrup, Tramadol and Pentazocine can attract the NDPS bail embargo where the record does not satisfy the Section 37 threshold of reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. The material, including seizure evidence, Section 67 statements, call detail records and bank records, was treated as indicating supply to co-accused, and the alleged absence of bills and mandatory records under Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules was viewed as supporting contravention of the NDPS regime. The commentary also notes that the NDPS Act operates in addition to the Drugs and Cosmetics framework, and that an unproved therapeutic-use defence does not displace the bail restriction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the material collected during investigation. (ii) Whether the alleged sale and supply of codeine-based syrup, Tramadol and Pentazocine without bills and in violation of the prescribed drug rules disentitled the applicant to bail.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the material collected during investigation.

Analysis: The application was examined on the basis of the seizure material, the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the call detail records, the bank record and the alleged role of the applicant as supplier to the co-accused. The Court noted that the prosecution material indicated prima facie illegal sale and supply of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and that for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 the Court had to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty. The record did not satisfy that threshold.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged sale and supply of codeine-based syrup, Tramadol and Pentazocine without bills and in violation of the prescribed drug rules disentitled the applicant to bail.

Analysis: The Court held that the NDPS Act, 1985 operates in addition to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder. It accepted the prosecution case that the alleged sales were without the mandatory records and bills required by Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, thereby attracting Rule 65A of the NDPS Rules, 1985 and the penal provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court further treated the whole quantity of codeine syrup as relevant where therapeutic use was not established, and found that the material disclosed a prima facie contravention involving commercial quantity.

Conclusion: The alleged therapeutic-use defence and the regulatory objections did not displace the NDPS embargo, and the applicant failed to make out a case for release on bail.

Final Conclusion: Bail was declined because the material disclosed a prima facie NDPS offence involving commercial quantity and the statutory conditions for release were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material discloses prima facie illegal sale or supply of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in contravention of the NDPS regime, and the statutory conditions for bail are not met, the accused is not entitled to bail merely because the substances are also regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

---