Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Singh Alias Sodhi vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-29244 of 2012
.....
Date of decision:15.11.2013
Rajbir Singh alias Sodhi
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.155 dated 8.7.2012 registered for the offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was earlier a licensed Chemist and the recovery effected from the petitioner does not fall under the Act.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab opposed the bail petition and argued that keeping in view the Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.11.18 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-29244 of 2012 [2] serious nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
From the record, I find that in the present case, as per prosecution version, the Investigating Officer received a secret information against the present petitioner that the owner of Sodhi Medical, New Subhash Nagar, namely, Rajbir Singh alias Sodhi, has been selling intoxicant tablets, capsules, bottles secretly to young boys outside his shop and he is not possessing any licence or bill for selling such type of intoxicant drugs. When the raid was conducted, 1200 capsules of Parvon Spas, 20 bottles of Rexcof and 200 tablets of Alexnel were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is admitted at the time of arguments that the petitioner was not having any licence at the time of recovery. His licence had already expired much prior to the occurrence and it has not been renewed. The recovery from the petitioner is commercial quantity. Section 37 of the Act bars release of the accused on bail in case of commercial quantity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2006 (4) RCR (Cr.) 974. This judgment having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in that case the recovery was effected from the Medical Practitioner, which is not a case in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) RCR (Cr.) 449. I have gone through this judgment. This case also having Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.11.18 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-29244 of 2012 [3] distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in that case the petitioner was held to running a chemist shop under a valid licence.
Therefore, from the above I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
November 15, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.11.18 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh