Codeine Syrup 'Racket' | Allahabad High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Pleas Of 2 Alleged Kingpins, Quashes Detention Under PITNDPS Act
The Allahabad High Court today allowed the habeas corpus petitions filed by Vibhor Rana and Vishal Singh and quashed their detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), in connection with cases concerning the alleged diversion and illegal trafficking of codeine-based cough syrups.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order while relying upon a recent judgment in the case of Lokendra vs. Union Of India And 3 Others. A detailed order, however, is awaited.
The petitions challenged the preventive detention proceedings in the cases registered against the petitioners, said to be the Kingpins of the codeine-based cough syrup racket, in Lucknow and Ghaziabad, concerning the alleged illegal trade and diversion of Phensedyl cough syrup.
Arguments put forth by the petitioners
The main contention raised in the petition was that Phensedyl cough syrup is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance and therefore the provisions of the NDPS Act could not be invoked merely because the formulation contains codeine.
The petitions relied upon an earlier Allahabad High Court judgment concerning proceedings initiated against Rana after the seizure of around 61,000 bottles of Phensedyl New Cough Linctus Syrup in Jaunpur in January 2021.
In that case, the High Court had quashed the proceedings against Rana under the NDPS Act after considering whether Phensedyl attracted the legislation's provisions.
The petitions also relied on a March 20, 2025 order of the Calcutta High Court, in which Rana was discharged in another case on the ground, according to the plea, that the NDPS Act did not apply.
The petitions further referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision wherein it was held Phensedyl containing codeine within the permissible limit to be outside the scope of the NDPS Act.
The petitions specifically placed reliance on the composition of Phensedyl. It stated that a 5 ml prescription dosage unit contains 10 mg of Codeine Phosphate IP, along with Chlorpheniramine Maleate, and consequently contains approximately 0.2% Codeine Phosphate.
The petitions referred to the Central Government's notification dated November 14, 1985, issued under the NDPS Act, which exempts certain codeine preparations containing not more than 100 mg of the drug per dosage unit and not more than 2.5% concentration in undivided preparations, subject to the conditions prescribed therein.
On that basis, the petitioners argued that Phensedyl did not constitute a manufactured drug or narcotic drug under the NDPS Act.
The pleas also referred to communications issued by the Directorate General of Health Services in 2005 and 2009, which, according to the petition, clarified that cough preparations containing Codeine Phosphate of 10 mg per dosage unit were governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and did not attract the NDPS Act.
The petitioners also disputed their alleged connection with the recovered cough syrup.
In relation to the Ghaziabad case, the petition stated that a raid conducted on November 4, 2025 led to the alleged recovery of 1,57,350 units of Eskuf and Phensedyl cough syrup, besides cash, electronic devices and other articles.
However, the petition asserted that there was no recovery from either Rana or Vishal Singh.
It stated that Rana's name subsequently surfaced in the investigation through statements attributed to co-accused persons.
The petition alleged that the statements relied upon against Rana and Vishal Singh were confessional statements of co-accused persons and argued that these could not constitute sufficient incriminating material against them.
The petition also disputed the prosecution's interpretation of certain financial transactions involving Rana, Vishal Singh and co-accused Abhishek Sharma.
According to the petition, Rana was the sole proprietor of G.R. Trading Company, a pharmaceutical distribution firm in Saharanpur, which had a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The firm had distributed various pharmaceutical products and had an arrangement with Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for distribution of its medicines.
The petition stated that G.R. Trading had stopped its operations in March 2023 and that Rana had stopped dealing in Phensedyl after earlier proceedings were initiated against him.
It was further claimed that the remaining Phensedyl stock was returned to Abbott.
The immediate challenge before the High Court was to the July 7, 2026 detention order passed under the PITNDPS Act.
The petition alleged that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind and that the detaining authority had failed to properly consider the earlier judicial decisions relied upon by Rana concerning Phensedyl.
The petitioners also argued that preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution.
They pointed out that criminal cases were already pending against Rana, that charge-sheets had been filed and that he had remained in judicial custody since November 13, 2025.
The plea therefore questioned the necessity of invoking preventive detention when the petitioner was already in custody in connection with the underlying criminal cases.
Another ground raised was that there was no live link between the material relied upon by the authorities and the necessity of preventive detention.
The petition stated that the authorities relied on the last alleged confessional statement, recorded on December 9, 2025, whereas the detention order was ultimately passed on July 7, 2026.
It alleged that the authorities proposed detention on May 25, 2026, and that an unexplained delay of around one-and-a-half months followed before the detention order was passed.
The petitioners argued that the delay undermined the requirement of "subjective satisfaction" under the PITNDPS Act.
They also contended that the detention order failed to demonstrate a real possibility of Rana being released from custody and thereafter engaging in activities prejudicial to the purposes of the preventive-detention law.
The habeas corpus petitions therefore sought to quash the detention order and release the detenues.
Senior Advocate Nipun Singh, assisted by Advocate Naman Agrawal, appeared for the petitioners
Additional Advocate General (AAG) and Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi, assisted by Advocate Paritosh Malviya, appeared for the state respondents