Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Rashid Alias Anda vs The State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2013
Crl. Misc. No. M-12338 of 2012
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 12338 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.02.2013
Mohammad Rashid alias Anda ..... Petitioner
Versus
The 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. Mansur Ali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Mohammad Rashid alias Anda, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 22 dated 10.03.2012 at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).
Crl. Misc. No. M-12338 of 2012
--2--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has become a favourite target for the police for registration of false cases. According to him, as per the FIR, the petitioner was seen by the police having some tablets in his possession on 10.03.2012 at about 2.00 PM, a time when the petitioner was appearing in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, a place 40 kms. away from the place where the alleged drugs are seized by the police. He has further submitted that taking otherwise, the drugs in possession of the petitioner are not even covered by the Act and may constitute a violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the application. According to him, the drugs carried by the petitioner are covered by the Act and since the offence is serious, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. According to him, the petitioner has not even joined the investigation so far.
It is a case where the petitioner was never directed to join the investigation. Vide order dated 30.04.2012 his arrest alone was stayed with no direction to him join the investigation. The investigation can be joined even after grant of anticipatory bail if the same is found to be a relief available to him in this case.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12338 of 2012
--3--
The petitioner is claimed to have been attending a court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 10.03.2012, the date on which he is said to have thrown away the bag he carried and escaped from the spot. Though learned State counsel, has not been able to dispute the submission that on 10.03.2012 the petitioner was attending a court at Sangrur, even if it is not taken into consideration, the report of Review Committee constituted by Drugs Inspector, Patiala, Supdt. Of Police,Crime Patiala Range, Supdt. of Police, Crime, HQ, Punjab Chandigarh and Deputy Inspector General of Police Crime Punjab, Chandigarh has come on record and the same shows that the first parcel was of Carisoma which had the salt of Carisoprodol, which is nowhere mentioned in the Act. The report shows that the second parcel was of Phenotil tablets, which had the ingredients of Diphenoxylate HCL and Atropine Sulphate. The report shows that a preparation containing these two salts in the given proportion is covered by Notification No.527(E) dated 16.07.1996 at Sr. No.44. About capsule Parvon Spas , which has the ingredients of Dextropropoxyphene HCL, Dicyclomine HCL and Paracetamol, it is mentioned that Dextropropoxyphene HCL is mentioned at Sr. No.33 of Notification No.527(E) dated 16.07.1996 while Dicyclomine HCL is not Crl. Misc. No. M-12338 of 2012
--4--
mentioned anywhere in the Act. Paracetamol is similarly reported to be not mentioned anywhere in the Act. Parcel No.4 is of Rexcof-20 bottles. The same is shown to contain Chlorpheniramine Maleate, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Act and Codeine Phosphate is exempted from the definition of manufactured drug by entry No.28 of the Notification No.527(E) dated 16.07.1996.
Taking into account the report of the Review Committee and the other circumstances of the case, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is consequently allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 sub clause 2 (i)(ii) and
(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
26.02.2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE