Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjodh Singh Alias Romi vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.M-8989 of 2012(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M- 8989 of 2012
Date of decision : 10.01.2013
Ranjodh Singh alias Romi ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab
for the State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J Ranjodh Singh alias Romi, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.127 dated 05.08.2011 at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Crl. Misc. No.M-8989 of 2012(O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was found keeping in his possession 1200 capsules of Parvon spas . According to him, the matter was referred to the Review Committee constituted by this court for examining the matter and for finding if the case is covered by the Act. According to him, as per the report of the said Committee, the ingredients of the material were found covered by Notification of Government of India dated 14.11.1985 bearing No.826(E). According to him, the Review Committee has recommended that the material does not fall under the Act. According to him, the petitioner is in custody for about one and a half years and he is entitled to bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application. According to him, a large quantity of Parvon spas capsules has been in his possession without any valid licence. According to him, the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to bail.
1200 capsules of Parvon spas were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. The same as per Forensic Science Laboratory contained Dextropropoxyphene HCL and Dicyclomine HCL alongwith Paracetamol. The matter was referred to the Review Committee consisting of Drug Inspector, District Amritsar-I, Superintendent of Police, Crime, Zonal , Amritsar, Superintendent of Police, Crime/HQ/Punjab Crl. Misc. No.M-8989 of 2012(O&M) 3 Chandigarh and Dy. Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh and following is the recommendation of the same:-
"In this case, the committee is of the opinion that as per test report no.7816 dated 16.11.2011 of the drug seized vide recovery memo contains Dextropropoxyphene HCL as one of the ingredient which is covered at Sr. No.87 of notification no.826(E) dated 14.11.1985 of NPS Act, (according to which unit drug formulations used for oral purposes containing less then 135 mg of Dextropropoxy- phene HCL used for medicinal purposes are exempted from the definition of manufactured drug and hence the NDPS Act 1985) and does not fall under the provision of NDPS,1985. Further Paracetamol and Dicyclomine HCL also does not fall under the provision of NDPS Act, 1985."
This is not the stage for either discharging the accused or taking any other such decision. The prayer is only for bail and in view of the report of the Review Committee, the petitioner appears to be entitled to bail during the trial. The petition is consequently allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.
January 10, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE