Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Nanda vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-22471 of 2013
Date of decision: October 22, 2013
Vikas Nanda
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.05 dated 14.01.2013 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act registered at police station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a licenced chemist and he has purchased the medicines which have been recovered on 08.01.2013. These recoveries have been made from a shop and false case has been registered.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned Gulati Vineet 2013.10.25 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22471 of 2013 -2- counsel for the parties.
Forensic Science Laboratory report has been placed on the record and the salt found in these drugs has been mentioned in detail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the weight of the capsule in which the medicine/salt has been filled, is excluded, then the recovered quantity will fall in non-commercial quantity. This argument has no merit. In no way the weight of the empty capsule can be excluded. This capsule along with salt filled in it is to be consumed and it is nowhere the case that only salt is to be consumed and remaining empty capsule is to be thrown away. Therefore, the weight of the empty capsule cannot be excluded and the quantity recovered from the petitioner falls under the commercial quantity.
As per the allegations in the FIR, on 14.01.2013, petitioner was apprehended having a polythene bag in his right hand. On checking, 40 straps of pyrevon-Spas capsules, each containing 10 capsules, 9 straps of Parvon-Spas, each having 10 capsules, 4 straps of Spasmo-Proxyvon, each containing 24 capsules, 5 packets of Momolit tablets each containing 100 tablets and one polythene with 200 loose capsules of Pyremol-spasm were recovered. Even if it is taken that these drugs have been purchased on 08.01.2013, then why the petitioner was carrying those drugs in a polythene bag on G.T. Road turn Sardulpur, Kalota and why he tried to escape, as per the allegation in the FIR. There is nothing on the record to show Gulati Vineet 2013.10.25 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22471 of 2013 -3- that this recovery has been effected from the chemist shop of the petitioner.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has the licence issued by the department renewed from 28.02.2008 to 27.02.2012. This recovery has been effected on 14.01.2013. Annexure P-3 is the application for renewal of the licence and Annexure P-6 is the translation of licence renewed from 28.02.2012 to 27.02.2017. This translation does not show the stamp affixed on the original licence stating the exception of these drugs. At the time of arguments, the photocopy of the original licence was shown to the Court which was having that stamp. Therefore, at this stage, for the purpose of bail, it cannot be held that petitioner was having licence for keeping these drugs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9730 of 2012 titled as Parmanand vs. State of Haryana. I have gone through this order. In this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the release of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the trial Court. From the perusal of the order, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down any law that the accused be released on bail in commercial quantity nor in this order there are any facts as to what was the recovery etc. Therefore, no benefit can be given to the petitioner on the basis of this order.
In view of the above, I find that commercial quantity has been recovered from the petitioner and Section 37 of the NDPS Act Gulati Vineet 2013.10.25 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22471 of 2013 -4- bars to release the petitioner on bail in case of commercial quantity. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
However, nothing stated above will be treated as my opinion on the merits of the case. Whatever observations are given, these are for the purpose of deciding the bail application only.
October 22, 2013 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Gulati Vineet
2013.10.25 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh