Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh Alias Balua vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12180-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 27.07.2022
Jatinder Singh alias Balua ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition is for the grant of regular bail
in case FIR No.001 dated 03.01.2021 under Section 22 of the Narcotic
Drgus and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) registered with
Police Station Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Punjab.
2. The present case has been registered on a secret information to
the effect that on 03.01.2021, the police party was present near T-point on
Sanduan road, village Saidpur for checking of suspicious elements. It was
about 11.45 pm when a motor cyclist came from village Sandhuan which
was being driven by a Hindu looking gentleman and on seeing the policy
party, the said person tried to flee, but he was apprehended along with the
motor cycle bearing No.PB-12-AE-1040. The said person had hung a bag
on his back and on search of the same, 60 injections of LEEGESIC 02 ML
and 60 bottles of AVIL (10ML) were recovered. The said person disclosed
his name as Jatinder Singh (the present petitioner). He could not produce
1 of 3
CRM-M-12180-2022 (O & M) ::2::
any permit or licence for having possession of the same. On the basis of
these allegations, the present case was registered against the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of
Rule 66 of the Narcotic Drgus and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (for
short 'the Rules') and Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, no offence is made out as the petitioner was carrying the
contraband for medicinal purposes and was as such permitted to do so in
terms of the provision of Rule 66 of the aforesaid Rules. He contends that
the recovery memo (Annexure P-2) does not refer to the name of the
petitioner from whom the alleged recovery is said to have been effected. He
contends that the recovery memo (Annexure P-3) shows that it was ASI
Rajinder Singh, who had stated that it was recovered from the petitioner.
Thus, it is contended that there is no recovery memo which shows that it was
prepared while effecting the alleged recovery from the petitioner. Even
otherwise, none of the recovery memos bore the signatures of the petitioner,
and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be liable for having committed
offence under the Act. It is lastly contended that the petitioner is in custody
since 03.01.2021 and as the trial has not made sufficient progress, the
petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail.
The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the recovery from the petitioner is of a commercial quantity of
contraband. He states that the petitioner has not been able to produce any
medical record to establish that the medicines which were recovered from
him were for his personal consumption due to any previous medical
condition, and thus, the provision of Rule 66 of the Rules cannot come to
2 of 3
CRM-M-12180-2022 (O & M) ::3::
the aid of the petitioner. He further contends that a perusal of the recovery
memos i.e. Annexure P-2 (kit bag) read with recovery memo i.e. Annexure
P-3 (intoxicating ampoules and vials) clearly show that the recovery has
been effected from the petitioner. Even otherwise, the arguments raised by
the petitioner would be a matter of adjudication and in view of the bar
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner does not
deserve the concession of bail. He placed reliance on the judgment passed
in the case of "State of Rajasthan versus Teja Ram, 1999(2) RCR
(Criminal) 285".
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.
The recovery from the petitioner is of commercial quantity of
contraband. The petitioner has prima facie not been able to establish that he
was suffering from any previous medical condition, and therefore, cannot
claim protection under Rule 66 of the Rules. Further, merely because the
recovery memos do not bear the signatures of the petitioner would not in any
way dilute the case of the prosecution. There is no provision of law which
makes the signing of the recovery memo by an accused mandatory.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I see no reason to grant the concession of regular bail to
the petitioner, hence, the present petition is dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
July 27, 2022 JUDGE
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
