Surjit Singh @ Seeta vs State Of Punjab

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

202

30.12.2019

Satnampura, District Kapurthala

22 & 61 of NDPS Act

The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of possessing 17 ampules of Buprenorphine, each containing 2 ml of liquid with drug content of 0.28 mg per ml, had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls in the commercial category.

REASONING:

As per FSL report the seizure was of 17 injections, each containing 2 ml liquid, and had an average 0.28 mg/ml of buprenorphine hydrochloride in it.

The notifications issued under NDPS Act defines 34 ml of Buprenorphine, which is equal to 34 grams, as follows:

Substance Name

BUPRENORPHINE

Quantity detained (in Grams)

34

Quantity type

Commercial

Drug Quantity in % to commercial quantity

170.00%

Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985

Notification No

S.O.1055(E)

Dated

10/19/2001

Sr. No

169

Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

BUPRENORPHINE

Other non-proprietary name

******

Chemical Name

21-cyclopropyl-7-alpha-[(S)-1-hydroxy-1,2,2- trimethylpropyl]-6,14,endo-ethano-6,7,8,14- tetrahydrooripavine

Small Quantity (in gm.)

1

Commercial Quantity (in gm.)

20

Given above, the quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the quantity involved is less than commercial. However, the above-mentioned analysis primafacie points towards a contrary result. Despite this, the trial court shall make its own analysis qua the quantity involved. The petitioner’s counsel did not argue any other point.

The grounds taken in the bail petition do not shift the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make a case for bail at this stage.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. However, considering the custody since 07-01-2022, the trial be expedited. The expediting of the trial is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment and if he does so, this order shall stand recalled automatically under section 362 read with 482 CrPC, without any further reference to this court. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.