Nagma @ Nazma vs State Of Punjab

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nagma @ Nazma vs State Of Punjab on 26 April, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

CRM-M No.3804 of 2024 (O&M) nh: 2024: PHHC:057163

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.3804 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.04.2024

Nagma@Nazma sss Petitioner
versus

StateofPunjabo ke Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

ke

Present :- Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab

ke

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case F.LR. No.120 dated 18.08.2023 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (for short 'the Act') at Police Station City-I, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

2 FIR came into being on the basis of secret information.

3 Petitioner was apprehended and was found to be in conscious possession of 1020 tablets i.e. 102 strips containing 10 tablets each. The strips were marked as NRX ALPRAZOLAM Tablets IP 1.0 mg ALZOCEL. The total weight of the tablets was found to be 103.02 grams of Alprazolam. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner on 01.04.2024 refers to the FSL report to submit that the contraband was weighed along with strips foil and it would be a debatable issue whether the quantity falls within the commercial quantity or is less than the same as the commercial quantity notified by the Central Govt. for alprazolam is above 100 grams.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M No.3804 of 2024 (O&M) 2h 2024: PHHC:057163 5 Short reply by way of affidavit of Gurdev Singh, PPS, DSP, Sub Division Malerkotla, District Malerkotla on behalf of respondent has been filed. The same is taken on record. It has been specifically dealt with in para 6 of the reply which reads as under :-

"in this regard, it is submitted that these queries are irrelevant because as per FSL report, the average weight of tablet has been found to be 101 mgfablet. Therefore, the total weight of intexicant tablets would be 1020 ftetal tablets) x 101 mg fAverage weight of tab] 1,03,020mge and when converted to grams the total weight will come to 103.02 grams. Therefore, the total recovery effected from the petitioner Nazma Nagma is of commercial quantity. Furthermore, the average weight has specifically reported in the FSi report as 101 mg per tablet and the weight of stripe foil is not included with the same. Se, the question of less than commercial quantity does not arise at all."

6 Custody certificate has been filed. The same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner by now has undergone more than 8 months and 8 days.

7 Faced with the situation learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only 1 tablet which was weighed. All tablets were not weighed. In the considered opinion of this Court the said argument sans merit and deserves to be rejected. The contraband is of 1020 tablets packed in strips of 10 tablets each. All the strips contained the same name, same batch number which show that the product is homogenous. Thus on account of principle of sampling weight of 1 tablet will hold good qua the other tablets as well because there is no heterogeneous character of other tablets as per the record.

CRM-M No.3804 of 2024 (O&M) 23: 2024:PHHC:057163 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is now a matter of 3.02 grams which can be attributed to human as well as mechanical error. The said argument is refuted by learned State counsel who submits that the weight of each tablet has been found to be 101 mg and thus it is a case of pure calculation which shows that the weight of total contraband is 103.02 grams and there is no such margin as is being pleaded. 9 Without going into the aforesaid debate as to whether there is a scope for mechanical or manual error it is not disputed that the quantity recovered is just on the cusp. Thus, it will be debatable if Section 37 will be attracted or not. Keeping in view that investigation already stands concluded, challan stands presented on 25.01.2024, most of the witnesses are official witnesses and the petitioner has by now undergone actual incarceration for 8 months & 8 days, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions :-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral or documentary during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the police authorities and shall not change his cell-phone number without permission of the trial Court.

nOOIA SHARMA (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

CRM-M No.3804 of 2024 (O&M) 4: 2024: PHHC:057163 10 Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 26.04.2024 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2024.04.26 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.