Sarabjit Singh Alias Shaba vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 5875 P&H

                            204

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                         CRM-M-39003-2021 (O&M)
                                                                         Date of decision : 01.06.2022


                            Sarabjit Singh alias Shaba                                    ... Petitioner(s)

                                                                Versus

                            State of Punjab                                             ... Respondent(s)



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present :     Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dulat, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                          Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Senior DAG Punjab.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

This is the second petition under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR

No.62 dated 12.07.2019 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act')

registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur. The first petition

filed by the petitioner being CRM-M-14946-2020 was dismissed as

withdrawn on 29.06.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner has falsely been involved in the present case and that even

otherwise there has been no compliance of the mandatory provisions of

Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

further contend that as per the custody certificate, though it has been YOGESH SHARMA 2022.06.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CRM-M-39003-2021 (O&M)                                                -2-

reflected that the petitioner is involved in two other cases, however, in one

case cancellation report has been filed and in the second case the petitioner

was convicted and has already undergone the sentence.

Learned counsel for the State has referred to the status report

filed by way of an affidavit of Sh. Gurinderpal Singh, PPS, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur wherein it has been

stated that the petitioner was apprehended during checking in village Agwan

near minor canal bridge. The petitioner, on seeing the Police party, started

throwing some articles from his bag and was apprehended. Thereafter, SI

Davinder Singh along with ASI Satnam Singh went to the spot and on

checking, 30 packets of intoxicant capsules make Parvorin SPAS Tramadol

having written Ridley over it, total of 3000 intoxicant capsules, 2240 tablets

of Alprazolam (Alprest) and 4680 tablets of Alprazolam (Alprafresh) were

recovered. Learned counsel for the State would further contend that recovery

in the present case falls under the category of heavy commercial quantity

and the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play. Without

admitting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the State contends that even otherwise it is a case of chance

recovery and, hence, there would be no applicability of Section 50 of the

NDPS Act.

Heard.

In the present case, the petitioner herein has been apprehended

with huge commercial quantity of intoxicant tablets i.e. 30 packets of

intoxicant capsules make Parvorin SPAS Tramadol having written Ridley YOGESH SHARMA 2022.06.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CRM-M-39003-2021 (O&M)                                                     -3-

over it, total of 3000 intoxicant capsules, 2240 tablets of Alprazolam

(Alprest) and 4680 tablets of Alprazolam (Alprafresh). The bar of Section

37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable in the present case. The question

whether there has been any compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act or

whether it was a case of chance recovery would be a matter which can be

gone into at the time of trial.

In view of the above, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant

of regular bail to the petitioner. The present petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.

It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall not

be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

off.

                                                                             ( ALKA SARIN )
                            01.06.2022                                           JUDGE
                            Yogesh Sharma

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO

YOGESH SHARMA 2022.06.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh