Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh @ Major Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 March, 2022
CRM-M-37900-2021 (O&M)
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-37900-2021 (O&M).
Decided on: March 29, 2022.
Hardeep Singh @ Major Singh
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
***
PRESENT Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
CRM-37773-2021
Prayer in the present application is for placing on record
copy of medical file as Annexure P-2.
For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is
allowed. Annexure P-2, is permitted to be taken on record.
Main case
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No.47 dated
1 of 5
CRM-M-37900-2021 (O&M)
7.5.2021, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar, Banga, District
S.B.S. Nagar.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 7.5.2021 and investigation
of the case has already been completed. He submitted that the petitioner has
clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the alleged recovery of 400
strips of buprenorphine tablets, is concerned, the petitioner is getting
treatment from the rehabilitation hospital since the year 2019 and in support
of his case, he has also referred to Annexure P-2 which is an OPD
prescription slip of Ivy Hospital, Nawanshahr, wherein the petitioner has
been prescribed tablets of buprenorphine 2 mg each and two tablets are to
be taken thrice a day i.e. total 6 tablets a day which was prescribed for 14
days but thereafter, the petitioner had been continuing with the said
prescription on the basis of the advise of the doctors but no prescription slip
was available with the petitioner who is behind bars. He has also relied
upon Rule 66 of the NDPS rules to state that when 300 doses are in the
possession of a person and there is a medical prescription for the same then
the same can be permitted because the salt of buprenorphine is known to be
administered to drug addicts for the purpose of their rehabilitation. He
submitted that it is known to medical science that the salt of buprenorphine
helps in de-addiction and the petitioner had taken the same on the basis of
2 of 5
CRM-M-37900-2021 (O&M)
prescription from a renowned hospital. He further submitted that the
petitioner is not involved in any other case and therefore, his long custody
would rather be counter productive by not permitting him for rehabilitation.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted
that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody since 7.5.2021 and it is also
correct that investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner has clean
antecedents and is not involved in any other case. However, he has
submitted that the total quantity which was recovered from the petitioner
was 400 strips of buprenorphine tablets which is hit by the bar contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, because the quantity recovered is
commercial in nature.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is in custody since 7.5.2021 and is not
involved in any other case and as per learned counsel for the parties, he has
clean antecedents. The petitioner has attached prescription slip (Annexure
P-2) to show that he was prescribed two tablets of buprenorphine thrice a
day i.e. total 6 tablets per day and the same was for 14 days. Subsequent
prescriptions slips could not be produced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner because the petitioner is in custody.
Be that as it may, the prescription slip is from renowned
hospital and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
the salt of buprenorphine is known to be meant for aiding the drug addicts
for rehabilitation as per the medical science carries weight. It is true that
3 of 5
CRM-M-37900-2021 (O&M)
300 doses as per rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, a person can always possess
but these doses are to be counted differently for the oral use and for
injection purposes. The mere fact that the petitioner was not able to produce
the subsequent prescription slips would not draw any presumption against
the petitioner. Although the total quantity falls under the commercial
quantity but the case of the petitioner will not be hit by the bar contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act because of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules.
A reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Sukhwinder
Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 177, wherein the
aforesaid Rule 66 has been discussed in detail. Furthermore, the State has
not taken any plea during the course of arguments that in case the petitioner
is released on bail then he may repeat the offence. Therefore, at this stage,
this Court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is
not guilty of offence and so far as second ingredient for making departure
from Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the same also stands
satisfied because there is no apprehension with the State that the petitioner
may repeat the offence. Therefore, the bar contained under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, at least, at this stage, will not apply to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. It is
ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned.
However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be
4 of 5
CRM-M-37900-2021 (O&M)
treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant only
for the purpose of decision of present petition.
March 29, 2022. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
