Manzoor Ahmed Khawaja vs State Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 112 j&K/2

             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT SRINAGAR
                                (Through Video Conference)


                                                     Reserved on: 28.12.2020
                                                     Pronounced on: 12.02.2021

                                                     Crl R No. 26/2019
                                                     CrlM No. 919/2019

Manzoor Ahmed Khawaja                                        ...Petitioner/Applicant(s)

                 Through :- Mr. Z. A. Quershi, Sr. Advocate with
                            Ms. Rehana Fayaz, Advocate

                v/s
                  <




State of J&K and another
't
                                                                     .....Respondent (s)

                 Through :- Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy. AG


Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                      (through Video Conference from residence in Jammu)

                                      JUDGMENT

1. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner against the

order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla

(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which the bail

application of the petitioner was rejected. The said order has been assailed by

the petitioner on the ground that while considering the application for grant of

bail it is only the quantity of narcotic drug or substance that is required to be

considered and not the quantity of whole mixture. It is also stated that the

learned trial court has not considered other grounds of the bail that the wife of

the petitioner was handicapped and the petitioner had three children, who

cannot sustain themselves. It is further stated that there is no provision which

bars the grant of bail at all, if the accused is found involved in the commission

of offences under sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotics Drug Psychotropic

Substance, 1985 (for short the Act).

2. Before appreciating the contentions of the parties, it is necessary

to have brief resume of the prosecution story. The petitioner was arrested on

17.04.2018 by the Police of Police Station, Pattan on the allegation that he was

in possession of 50 bottles of Phenoreox 100 ml each. Thereafter, FIR bearing

No. 81/2018 was registered against the petitioner for commission of offences

under sections 8 and 22 of the Act. After the conclusion of the investigation,

charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. As per the Forensic Science

Laboratory's report also, substance Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine HCL

detected in the exhibit, was narcotic, analgesic, anti-allergic, anti-tussive cough

suppressant, excessive use of which can cause addiction.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed

the conclusion made by the trial court while rejecting the application for grant

of bail filed by the petitioner.

4. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that 50 bottles of

Phenoreox 100 ml. each were recovered from the petitioner, those admittedly

contained Codeine Phosphate. As per entry No. 28 of the notification bearing

No. SO-1055(e) dated 19.10.2001, the commercial quantity of the Codeine has

been prescribed as 01 Kg and the total quantity of recovered contraband from

the possession of the petitioner comes out to be 5000 ml Codeine Phosphate,

which is equivalent to approximately 5 Kg of Codeine Phosphate that

admittedly is much beyond the commercial quantity, as such, the trial court has

rightly come to the conclusion that the quantity of the contraband recovered

from the petitioner falls within the purview of commercial quantity. A perusal

of the order reveals that the trial court has rightly considered all the aspects,

those were raised by the petitioner in the bail application.

5. In view of the above, there is no illegality or impropriety in the

order impugned passed by the trial court that warrants interference by this

Court. The revision petition is, as such, dismissed.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 12.02.2021 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No