CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0075

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotroic Substantes Act, 1985 — Section 22, 61, 85
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 43784 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 381 words

Sudip Ahluwalia, J

1.

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.13, dated

03.02.2020, under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala.

2.

Perusal of the Custody Certificate of the petitioner, sent up by Ld. State Counsel through e-mail, goes to show that by now the petitioner has

already undergone detention in excess of one year, following his arrest on 03.02.2020.

3.

Contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the petitioner is a licensed Chemist and that from the three items allegedly

recovered from his Chemist Shop, he was permitted to stock the tablets of ALPRANOF 0.5 mg., as can be seen from his existing License, reissued

on 08.09.2019 (Annexure P-2), and that the liquid material recovered from his shop was found to contain “Oxytocin†which according to the FSL

Report on record (Annexure P-3), in any case does not fall under the ambit of NDPS Act, 1985.

4.

Regarding the recovery of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride tablets, it is an admitted case in the FIR that such recovery was of 400 tablets, the average

weight of which was found to be 82 mg. per tablet in the FSL Report. Consequently, total weight of the same would come to 32.8 gms., which is well

below the commercial quantity of 50 gms.

5.

In this view of the matter, considering the long detention already undergone by the petitioner and without making any further comments on the

merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that his further detention for an indefinite period of time at this stage is not called for, since he is

admittedly not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, 1985. On the contrary, he is found to have actually been acquitted in a previous case,

which has been mentioned in Column No.4 of the petitioner's Custody Certificate sent up by Ld. State Counsel, today.

6.

For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to appropriate

terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

7.

Disposed off.