Gurinder Singh Alias Rasgulla vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 777 P&H

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH

211                                                     CRM-M-29359-2021
                                        Date of Decision : February 17, 2022

GURINDER SINGH ALIAS RASGULLA
                                                               .....Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                             .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present : Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rukhsaar Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI. J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in

case FIR No.165 dated 18.12.2020 under Section 22 of NDPS Act (later

on challan presented under Section 22 C of NDPS Act), Police Station

Special Task Force, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (STF Wing).

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody from 18.12.2020 which is more than one year and

the investigation of the case has already been completed and the matter is

now fixed for prosecution evidence. He has further submitted that it is a

case where the allegations against the petitioner are that there was a

recovery of 20 injections each of 10 ml of Avil and 20 injections each of

2 ml of Leegesic which contained the salt of Buprenorphine from the

petitioner. He submitted that so far as the salt of Avil is concerned, the

same is not covered within the scope of NDPS Act and so far as the

1 of 3

recovery of 20 injections of each containing 2 ml of Leegesic is

concerned, although the same falls within the commercial quantity which

is 20 ml but in view of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, a person can always

possess the quantity upto 100 doses for medical purposes and so far as

the present petitioner is concerned, he was undergoing treatment from the

PGI, Chandigarh for his depression and rehabilitation and the same was

required for his own personal use. He further submitted that he was

earlier involved in one other case under the NDPS Act but in that case

there was no recovery from the petitioner and his name was nominated on

the basis of disclosure statement and he is already on bail in that case. He

submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the

petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail and he has also

relied upon the judgments of this Court in Saleem Mohd. Vs. State of

Punjab, 2015(25) R.C.R. (Criminal) 816 and Sukhwinder Singh @

Vicky Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 177 to contend

that keeping upto 100 doses of Buprenorphine injections for consumption

for medical purposes is permissible under Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules. He

further submitted that in view of the aforesaid position, the rigor of

Section 37 of NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that it

is correct that the salt of Avil is not covered within the scope of the

NDPS Act but so far as the other salt of Buprenorphine is concerned,

there was a total recovery of 20 injections of 2 ml each and the

commercial quantity is 20 mg under the schedule of the NDPS Act. She

has further submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody

2 of 3

from 18.12.2020 and the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The custody of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not

in dispute that the investigation of the case has already been completed

and the matter is now fixed for prosecution evidence. So far as the

alleged recovery of 40 ml of Buprenorphine injections is concerned,

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was

undergoing treatment in PGI, Chandigarh for depression and

rehabilitation and for that purpose it appears that he was in the

requirement of injections of Buprenorphine which is a known drug for

the purpose of making rehabilitation for those who are addicted to drugs.

The aforesaid two judgments would also be applicable in the present

case. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that in case the petitioner

is released on bail then he may influence any witness or may tamper with

any evidence or may repeat the offence. Therefore, the rigor of Section

37 of NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner atleast at this stage.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

deems it fit and proper to grant bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety

bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial

Court/Duty Magistrate.

                                          (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
February 17, 2022                                 JUDGE
ajay-1
             Whether speaking/reasoned.        :       Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.               :       Yes/No




                                3 of 3