The court considered the quantity of contraband, relevant case laws, and the accused's criminal history to grant bail and imposed stringent conditions to prevent the accused from influencing the investigation and tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. A woman under arrest for violating the provisions as mentioned above of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), per the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act do not apply.

2. In paragraph 15 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:

He contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. Ld. Counsel appearing for State opposes the bail and submits that grant of bail encourages the drug peddlers, and the drug menace is spreading day by day.

REASONING:

5. The quantity allegedly involved is one gram of heroin and 15 injections of Buprenorphine and 15 injections of Avil. Without going into the controversy as to whether the quantity involved is commercial or not, reference to Rule 66 of NDPS Act, 1985 would prima facie makes out a case for bail.

6. In Sajan Abraham v State of Kerala, (2004) 4 SCC 441, The case of the prosecution was that the convict was found in possession of 25 ampoules of manufactured drug, namely - Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Tidigesic) alongwith three syringes when he was apprehended on the road. While dealing with the appeal against conviction, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[3]. While allowing the review petition this Court observed that the appellant should have taken up a plea in the light of the decision of this Court in Hussain v. State of Kerala, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 348 (SC) : 2000(8) SCC 139 in which the same article Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Tidigesic) was found to be a psychotropic substance and the quantity which was found in possession of the accused was within the prescribed limit, being a small quantity. Consequently benefit of the same was granted to the accused in that case and he was acquitted. This Court felt, while allowing the review petition, that the appellants should be permitted to take up that contention in this case in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This Court noticed that the total quantity involved is 25 ampoules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (Tidigesic) of 2 ml. each. Counsel for the State of Kerala submitted that the limit of small quantity as per the Notification is 1 gm. Thus the total quantity seized from the appellant would fall within the limit of small quantity used for medicinal purpose. The appellant was permitted to file a petition seeking permission to raise additional ground in the appeal.

[7]. Rule 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Rules') provides as follows :-

"66. Possession, etc. of psychotropic substances. - (1) No person shall possess any psychotropic substance for any of the purpose covered by the 1945 Rules, unless he is lawfully authorized to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these Rules.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), any research institution, or a hospital or dispensary maintained or supported by Government or local body or by charity or voluntary subscription, which is not authorised to possess any psycho