Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krish Pratap Alias Krishna Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40845
1 MCRC-22833-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22833 of 2025
KRISH PRATAP ALIAS KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Advocate for applicant.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for State.
Heard on : 19.08.2025
Pronounced on : 26.08.2025
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023/ 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.101 of 2025
registered at Police Station – Kotwali Shahdol, District – Shahdol (M.P.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and
Sections 5/13 of the M.P. Drugs Control Act, 1949. The applicant is in
custody since 19.03.2025.
2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that applicant Krishna
Pratap @ Krishna Pratap Singh s/o Kunwar singh was arrested on 19.03.2025
for the offence punishable under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act and from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40845
2 MCRC-22833-2025
his possession NRX Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection 0.3 mg total 45
ampoules have been recovered. In the same way Pheniramine Maleate
Injection 2 ml total 29 ampoules and Promethazine Hydrochloride Injection 2
ml total 445 ampoules, total 519 injections have been seized. Learned
counsel for applicant has submitted that except NRX Buprenorphine
Hydrochloride Injection, other injections do not come in the purview of
narcotic drugs as defined in the scheduled annexed with the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that only 45 ampoules
of NRX Buprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection have been seized from the
possession of applicant, hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for applicant to strengthen his argument has further
submitted that 1 gm Buprenorphine is small quantity and 20 gm is
commercial quantity and relying on the judgment passed by Hon’ble the
Kerala High Court in the case of Salam s/o Abdul Kader vs. Union of India
in WP (C) No.3934 of 2005 vide order dated 30.07.2007 , particularly para
No.2 in which it has been mentioned that “Buprenorphine” injection or
“Buprenorphine” Hydrochloride injection is a sterile solution of
Buprenorphine Hydrochloride in water for injection and the standards for the
same are given in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, 1996. As per Indian
Pharmacopoeia, 1996 small quantity and commercial quantity of
Buprenorphine is fixed as follows :
5. As per the Indian Pharmacopoeia standards one gram of
Buprenorphine is 3333.33 milliliters when it is in liquid form for the purpose
of small quantity. For the purpose of commercial quantity 20 grams of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40845
3 MCRC-22833-2025
Buprenorphine is 66666.60 milliliters when it is in liquid form.
6. Learned counsel for applicant has further relied on the judgments
passed by Hon’ble the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pardeep
Kumar @ Manga vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M No.8308/2025 dated
18.03.2025 in which Hon’ble the High Court has approved this principle.
7. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the same
principle has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Rahul Shukla vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C.
No.50434/2024 dated 09.12.2024, in the case of Deep Chandra Agrahari vs.
State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41536 of 2024
dated 12.11.2024 by Hon’ble the Allahabad High Court, in the case of
Mahesh @ Manish vs. State of Haryana passed in CRM-M No.59377/2022
dated 16.10.2023 by Hon’ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryanain in
which this factor has been considered, in the case of Mohammad Farid s/o
Mohammad Hallem vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer
passed in M.Cr.C. No.6426 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 and by Hon’ble the
Apex Court in the case of Shabna Abdulla vs. Union of India and Others,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057 particularly para Nos.15 and 17 are held as
under :
“15. When the Coordinate Bench of the same
High Court based on same grounds of detention and on
the basis of the same material, which was relied on by
the detaining authority, had come to a considered
conclusion that non-supply of certain documents hadSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:408454 MCRC-22833-2025
vitiated the right to make an effective representation of
the detenus, another Coordinate Bench could not have
ignored the same.
17. We are of the considered opinion that the
Division Bench of the High Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order should have followed the
view taken by another Division Bench of the same High
Court specifically when the grounds of detention and
the grounds of challenge were identical in both the
cases. In the event, the Division Bench of the High
Court was of the view that the earlier decision of the
Coordinate Bench of the same High Court was not
correct in law, the only option available to it was to
refer the matter to a larger Bench.”
8. Learned counsel for applicant has also submitted that in the
judgment of Hira Singh and another vs. Union of India and another, (2020)
20 SCC 272 has also taken into consideration and that has no application as
this rule of conversion from ml to gram has applied by the different Courts.
9. Learned counsel for State has opposed the bail application and has
submitted that the formula adopted by the learned counsel for applicant for
changing the milliliter into gram is above understanding as the principle is
not like this, hence, it is not a fit case for bail, therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
10. The strength and dose of the drug for 1 ml is prescribed as 0.3 mg
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40845
5 MCRC-22833-2025
that for the medicinal purpose. The basic judgement on which the other
judgements are relied is Salam s/o Abdul Kader (supra) that was passed in
the year 2007. The NDPS Act notification was amended by the notification
bearing No.S.O.2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009 and and note No.4 was added
with the list contending that entire weight of mixture/drug by whatever name
called, weight of neutral material is also required to be considered and this
was done after the judgment of E Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer
Narcotic, (2008) 5 SCC 161 and this amendment was challenged and Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Hira Singh and another (supra) has held that this
notification is legal and valid and has also held that the neutral substance
shall not be excluded while calculating the small quantity or commercial
quantity and this factor has been considered by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in the case of Kamalveer Singh vs. State of Punjab passed in CRM-
M No.19562/2020 dated 13.10.2020 regarding the same drug as under :
“At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that
the three Judges Bench in Hira Singh and another vs.
Union of India and another, Criminal Appeal No.722 of
2017 has been pronounced its judgment on 22.04.2020.
The Supreme Court has reversed its previous view in E.
Micheal Raj vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control
Bureau (2008) 5 SCC, 161. It has been held that
quantity of one or more neutral substances in a mixture
cannot be excluded while determining the quantity of
the narcotics/psychotropic substances for determiningSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40845
6 MCRC-22833-2025
the category of commercial quantity.
This court has heard learned senior counsel for
the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
Although, Sh. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, has
addressed lengthy arguments, however, all the
contention put forth stands examined by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in another three Judge Bench judgment
in Union of India vs. Sanjeev B. Deshpandey, (2014) 13
SCC 1. The judgment passed by the Delhi High Court
in the case of Rajinder Gupta vs. State (Delhi), 2005(16)
R.C.R.(Criminal), 264, has been over-ruled. It has been
held while interpreting Section 8(C) of NDPS Act 1985
prohibit production, manufacture, possession, trading,
transportation, warehousing, usage, consumption etc. of
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
In view of the aforesaid, 40 injections having
Buprenorphine Hydrochloride salt are alleged to have
been recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused.
Each vial is reported to contain 2ml liquid. The total
quantity comes to 80 ml.
Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab, has pointed out that 80 ml mixture with
Buprenorphine Hydrochloride falls in the category of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40845
7 MCRC-22833-2025
commercial quantity.
In view thereof, there is no ground to grant bail to
the petitioner more particularly keeping in view the
rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.”
11. Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Shukla
(supra) has not decided any principle in this regard.
12. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.
13. Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
DPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 26-08-2025
18:04:23
[ad_1]
Source link