Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arpit Jain vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 30 November, 2017
1
M.Cr.C.No.17514/2017
(Arpit Jain Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 30.11.2017
Mr. Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Vivek Khedkar, Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondent.
Case diary is available.
This is third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Second bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.08.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8937/2017.
The applicant has been arrested on 12.01.2017 in connection with Crime No.01/2017 registered by Police Station Narcotics, Morar, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail from 12.01.2017 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. It is further submitted that at the time of seizure of sampling of 4,000 ampoules of Pentazocine injection, the standing order 2 1988 and 1 1989 were not followed as well as standing order of the year 2015 was also not followed. The applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the applicant was found in possession of 4,000 ampoules of Pentazocine injection. Since every ampoules contains the label on which the batch number etc is disclosed by the manufacturing unit as required under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, therefore, under these circumstances, it was not 2 necessary for the prosecution to strictly follow the standing orders pertaining to the seizure of sampling of the contraband/drug. Certificate under Section 52 of NDPS Act was not required to be obtaubed. The chain of possession with regard to the safe custody of the ampoules is in tact. The previous bail applications have already been dismissed by this Court and no change in circumstances could be pointed out by the counsel for the applicant.
So far as the delay is concerned, it is clear from the record that the charge-sheet has been filed on 10.07.2017 i.e. within stipulated period of six months. It is further submitted by the counsel for the parties that the charges have been framed. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the applicant for grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial because the facts of the case clearly show that the charge-sheet was filed in the month of July and the charges have already been framed and the case is not fixed for recording of the evidence. So far as the violation of the standing orders 1988, 1989 and 2015 is concerned, these are the disputed question of fact which are to be considered by the Trial Court.
At this stage, it appears that the large quantity of ampoules of the injection Pentazocine have been seized from the applicant and those ampoules are containing the labels on which the declaration has been made by the manufacturing unit about the batch number and other relevant factors. So far as the contention of the applicant that since the drug seized from the possession of the applicant is a mixture or preparation of narcotic with neutral material, therefore the actual quantity of the drug should have been calculated instead of considering the 3 total number of ampoules. It is clear that by notification number 2941 (E) dated 18th November, 2009 following has been added in notification specifying smaller quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances :
"The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content."
Thus, it is clear that the quantity shown in the column 5 and 6 in the Table shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form.
Thus, prima facie, it is clear that it is not necessary for the prosecution to point out the exact quantity of psychotropic substance containing in the mixture/drug in each ampoules.
Considering the allegations made against the applicant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, this bail application is hereby rejected.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge bj/-
BARKHA JHA 2017.12.01 18:10:54
-08'00'