Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Aruna @ Runa - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.T., Chandigarh - Respondent
CRM-M No. 36753 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-01-2020
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, APP for U.T. Chandigarh
Granting bail based on custody duration and trial timeline without expressing opinion on case merits.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in a case involving possession of Buprenorphine and Pheniramine Maleate, with controversy regarding their classification under the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the petitioner's custody duration and trial timeline, granted bail without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.
Issues: Controversy over the classification of the recovered substances, petitioner's criminal antecedents, and the duration of custody versus trial timeline.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail based on the petitioner's custody duration and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, without delving into the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.262 dated 06.08.2019, registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh.
2. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner was found in possession of 14 injections of Buprenorphine (2 ML each) and 10 injections of Pheniramine Maleate (10 ML each). Pheniramine Maleate is not covered under the Schedule of the NDPS Act. Controversy with regard to Buprenorphine at serial No. 169 of the Notification/Schedule of the NDPS Act would be debatable as to whether it is a psychotropic substance or not.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Ajaib Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 330, to contend that Buprenorphine is not mentioned in Schedule 1 of NDPS Rules, therefore, provision in terms of Section 8 of the Act would have no application.
4. Similar view was taken in Kismat Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 329 whereas a contrary view has come in Dilip Kumar Virvani and others vs. State of Chattishgarh, 2014 (35) RCR (Criminal) 329, it would be debatable as to the contraband falling under the ambit of narcotic substance or otherwise.
5. Learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, has, however submits that the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity as the entire bulk was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.
6. Challan has been presented and the charges have been framed. Now, the trial of the case is fixed for 21.01.2020.
7. Learned State counsel further states that the petitioner has some antecedents behaviour of criminal activity arising out of excise cases.
8. The petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2019 and has undergone incarceration about 5 months and 7 days as on 13.01.2020 and the trial of the case may take some time in its culmination.
9. In the light of aforesaid facts and without meaning anything on the merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.
10. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to her furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
11. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an opinion on merits of the case.
