Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj Advocate Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090879
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-24-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
criminal misc. no.m-18512 of 2013 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal misc. no.m-18512 of 2013 date of decision: 24.09.2013. darshan singh ..petitioner versus state of punjab ..respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice daya chaudhary present: mr.karan bhardwaj, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.rupam aggarwal, dag, punjab for the respondent – state. daya chaudhary, j. (oral) the present petition has been filed under section 439 cr.p.c.on behalf of the petitioner-darshan singh for grant of regular bail in case fir no.28 dated 20.03.2012, under sections 22/25/61/85 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 registered at police station ghall khurd, district ferozepur. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is that whether the salts i.e., altopine sulphate and diphenoxylate hydrochloride, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition falls under ndps act or not and the controvers.is pending before division bench of this court, which has not been decided so far. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per allegations in the fir, the petitioner was found in possession of 13 packets of microlit tablets, rani neetu which were total 1300 tablets. learned counsel for the petitioner 2013.09.28 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal misc. no.m-18512 of 2013 2 also submits that the petitioner was picked up from his house and thereafter, fir was registered whereas he was not involved in the offence in any manner. co-accused of the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing criminal misc. no.m-31890 of 2012 for grant of regular bail and vide order dated 01.04.2013, bail has been granted to him. learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2012 and nothing is to be recovered from him and no purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.no other case under ndps act is pending against him. learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of hon'ble the supreme court in parmanand versus state of haryana & ors., special leave to appeal (crl.) no.9730 of 2012 decided on 22.08.2013. the order passed by hon'ble the supreme court in abovesaid case is reproduced as under: - “the petitioner is an accused in a case under section 21 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for short the 'ndps act').his prayer for bail has been rejected by the impugned order of the high court. according to the prosecution, a large number of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances have been recovered from the petitioner. mr.p.n.misra, learned senior counsel rani neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal misc. no.m-18512 of 2013 3 appearing for the petitioner while pressing for bail submits that no licence is required under the ndps act for storage of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. mr.manjit singh, learned additional advocate general, appearing for the respondent- state submits that the state government has not framed any rule in this regard. during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. with the aforesaid directions, the special leave petition is disposed of.”. learned state counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but has not disputed the judgment of hon'ble the supreme court in parmanand's case (supra).in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the controvers.as involved in the present case is pending before a division bench of this court; and moreover, hon'ble the supreme court has granted bail under the similar circumstances; the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2012; and no other case under ndps act is pending against him, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (darshan singh) is rani neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal misc. no.m-18512 of 2013 4 directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court till the decision of controvers.by the division bench. 24.09.2013 (daya chaudhary) neetu judge rani neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Criminal Misc.

No.M-18512 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.

No.M-18512 of 2013 Date of decision: 24.09.2013.

Darshan Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.on behalf of the petitioner-Darshan Singh for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.28 dated 20.03.2012, under Sections 22/25/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is that whether the salts i.e., Altopine sulphate and Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition falls under NDPS Act or not and the controveRs.is pending before Division Bench of this Court, which has not been decided so far.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was found in possession of 13 packets of Microlit tablets, Rani Neetu which were total 1300 tablets.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 2013.09.28 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

No.M-18512 of 2013 2 also submits that the petitioner was picked up from his house and thereafter, FIR was registered whereas he was not involved in the offence in any manner.

Co-accused of the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc.

No.M-31890 of 2012 for grant of regular bail and vide order dated 01.04.2013, bail has been granted to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2012 and nothing is to be recovered from him and no purpose would be served by keeping him behind the baRs.No other case under NDPS Act is pending against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parmanand versus State of Haryana & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9730 of 2012 decided on 22.08.2013.

The order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in abovesaid case is reproduced as under: - “The petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act').His prayer for bail has been rejected by the impugned order of the High Court.

According to the prosecution, a large number of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances have been recovered from the petitioner.

Mr.P.N.Misra, learned Senior Counsel Rani Neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

No.M-18512 of 2013 3 appearing for the petitioner while pressing for bail submits that no licence is required under the NDPS Act for storage of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Mr.Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent- State submits that the State Government has not framed any rule in this regard.

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

With the aforesaid directions, the special leave petition is disposed of.”

.

Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but has not disputed the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parmanand's case (supra).In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the controveRs.as involved in the present case is pending before a Division Bench of this Court; and moreover, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted bail under the similar circumstances; the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2012; and no other case under NDPS Act is pending against him, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Darshan Singh) is Rani Neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

No.M-18512 of 2013 4 directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court till the decision of controveRs.by the Division Bench.

24.09.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE Rani Neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh