Tarun@Kalu vs State Of Haryana on 21 October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody for 1 year and 4 months and it is a case where the
petitioner has been falsely implicated at the hands of the police because
of some old enmity with the police officer because he was earlier
involved in three more cases. He has submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner were that on the basis of the secret information, the
police had apprehended the petitioner with 12 injections of
Buprenorphine and 12 injections of AVIL. He further submitted that so
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2022 03:50:35 :::
CRM-M-48210-2022(O&M) -2-
far as the 12 injections of AVIL are concerned, the same are not covered
under the provisions of the NDPS Act and so far as the 12 injections of
Buprenorphine are concerned, the same although falls in the category of
commercial quantity but the quantity is marginally high and the bar
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the present
case in view of the fact that the offer which was given under Section 50
of the NDPS Act was totally defective offer and a third option was also
given by the concerned officer. He has during the course of arguments
supplied a vernacular copy of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
and which is hereby taken on record as Mark-X and while referring to the
aforesaid notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act he submitted that
when an offer was given it was stated that whether he wanted to get
himself searched either by ASI himself or any Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate. He submitted that on the face of it the offer was defective
and not only the recovery but also the trial will get vitiated since the
provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act which are mandatory has not been
complied with and, therefore, the bar contained under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act will not apply in the present case. He further submitted that so
far as the quantity of 12 injections of Buprenorphine is concerned, the
same are less than 100 doses as specified under Rule 66 of the NDPS
Rules and, therefore, on that account as well the case of the petitioner
would be covered by the ratio of judgment of this Court in Sukhwinder
@ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(1) R.C.R.(Crl.) 177. He has,
therefore, prayed for the grant of regular bail.