Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M-10279 of 2012(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-10279 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: May 14, 2012
Harpreet Singh .....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Sandeep Majithia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.21250 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-10279 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.42, dated 8.2.2012, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Raja Sansi, Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that on 8.2.2012, police officials were on patrol duty when secret information was received against present petitioner-accused that he was indulging in selling Crl.M.No.M-10279 of 2012(O&M) -2- of intoxicated capsules while standing at main road near liquor shop and that if raid is conducted, he could be apprehended alongwith intoxicated capsules. Hence, in view of the said information, raid was conducted and present petitioner-accused was found standing alongwith a plastic bag in his hand. However, after seeing the police party from a distance, he ran away after throwing the plastic bag on the spot. Police officials tried to catch him but could not succeed. However, he was identified by Head Constable Sucha Singh. On checking of bag, 150 capsules of Parvon spas and 250 capsules of Proxyvon were recovered.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that his father was running a chemist shop and that he was having a licence, Annexure P2, for running a chemist shop and hence, it is contended that petitioner was legally authorised to keep the said capsules in possession and that it cannot be said that any offence was committed by him. He has also placed reliance upon Criminal Misc.No.M- 22901 of 2005, decided on October 11, 2006 (Sawaran Singh v. State of Punjab); Tejpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 414; Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 907; and Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(2) RCR (Criminal)
276. However, in this case, recovery was not effected from the shop of father of petitioner-accused. Petitioner was not having a licence to run a chemist shop. Recovery was effected near a liquor shop on the road, where petitioner was found carrying a bag containing 150 capsules of Parvon spas and 250 capsules of Proxyvon. It is further contended that recovery of 150 Crl.M.No.M-10279 of 2012(O&M) -3- capsules of Parvon Spas, which contains dextroproxyphene hydrochloride, comes to less than commercial quantity.
Be that as it may, there was a secret information against petitioner-accused. His name and address has been mentioned in the FIR. He was found carrying a bag containing 150 capsules of Parvon spas and 250 capsules of Proxyvon near a liquor vend, though he succeeded in running.
Hence, in view of the these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Harpreet Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
14.5.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge