IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.02.2025 Sumit ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Wiwach, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of the BNSS with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR No.359 dated 20.07.2023 registered under Sections 21, 22, 29 and 18-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') at Police Station Parao, District Ambala.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant alongwith other police officials had set up a Naka in search of wanted criminals and drug peddlers and in the meantime, a secret informer informed that the petitioner, who was in the business of supplying the intoxicating injections was coming to that side with a huge quantity of intoxicating injections. Consequently, the police had set up a Naka and the petitioner was arrested after following due process of law.

Even, 50 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ML each and 100 injections (vials of Avil of 10 ML each) were recovered from the petitioner without any valid and effective licence and as per the provisions of the NDPS Act, 20 grams of aforesaid drug was the “commercial quantity” of the contraband.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 20.07.2023 and is in custody for the last 01 year, 06 months and 21 days. He further contends that as per the story of the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 50 injections of Buprenorphine (02 ML each) and 100 injection (vials) of Avil (10 ML each) and it has been wrongly shown that the quantity of contraband fall within the ambit of “commercial quantity”. As per learned counsel, according to the first proviso to Rule 66(ii) of the “Act”, a person is legally authorize to keep/possess upto 100 doses of the above injection. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery was effected from the petitioner in the open place from his lower, but no private person was joined as a witness in the present case. He further contends that even the police had violated the mandatory provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, while making the recovery from the present petitioner. As per him, he was in custody for 01 year, 06 months and 21 days and the trial may take quite a long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Rule 66 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules 1985 (in short “NDPS Rules”) and the same has been reproduced as under:

“66. Possession, etc., of psychotropic substances.-3[(1) No person shall possess: any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered under 1945 rules, unless he is lawfully authorized to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these rules:

Provided that possession of a psychotropic substance specified in Schedule I shall be only for the purposes mentioned in chapter VIIA. (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 psychotropic substance under the 1945 Rules, or any person who is not so authorised under the 1945 Rules, may possess a reasonable quantity of such substance as may be necessary for their genuine scientific requirements or genuine medical requirements, or both for such period as is deemed necessary by the said institution or, as the case may be, the said hospital or dispensary or person.

Provided that where such Psychotropic substance is in possession of an individual for his personal medical use the quantity thereof shall not exceed one hundred dosage units at a time:

[Provided further that an indi