Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh @ Soni vs State Of Punjab on 6 December, 2023
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156797
2023:PHHC:156797
CRM-M-60346-2023 -1-
241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-60346-2023
Date of Decision: 06.12.2023
Ajmer Singh @ Soni .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. 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 bearing
FIR No.74 dated 04.06.2023, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (Sections
27/29/31 of the NDPS Act and Section 411 IPC added later on) registered at
Police Station Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is in custody for about 6 months and the investigation of the case has
already been completed and thereafter, challan has also been presented before
the competent Court. He further submitted that it is a case where the alleged
confiscation of 15 injections of Buprenorphine containing 2 ml. each from the
petitioner and the other co-accused. He also submitted that the petitioner
himself is using the aforesaid injections of Buprenorphine for medication
purposes and as per Rule 66 of the N.D.P.S. Rule, a person can keep 100 dosage
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156797
2023:PHHC:156797
of Buprenorphine without prescription for the purpose of medical use. He
further submitted that even earlier also the petitioner was involved in six more
cases but in all those cases Buprenorphine and other similar kind of material
involved were in very small quantity. He further referred to the judgment of this
Court passed in "Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky+ Vs. State of Punjab", 2021(1)
RCR (Criminal) 177 to contend that considering the Rule 66 of the NDPS Rule,
the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the
present case even if the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act
pertaining to salt of Buprenorphine is 20 grams/ml. He submitted that
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the
aforesaid judgment, he may be considered for grant of regular bail.
3. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Sidhu, learned AAG, Punjab has stated
that so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and
it is also correct that the investigation of the case has already been completed
and thereafter, challan has also been presented before the competent Court. He
further submitted that the recovery from the petitioner and the other co-accused
was of 15 injections of Buprenorphine containing 2 ml each and a stolen
scooter.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. It is a case where the alleged recovery of 15 injections of
Buprenorphine containing 2 ml. each from the petitioner and the other co-
accused. This Court dealt with the issue of the quantity of Buprenorphine and
the applicability of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules in Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky's
case (Supra). During the course of arguments, it was so stated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Dope Test of the petitioner was conducted and
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156797
2023:PHHC:156797
it was found to be positive that the petitioner was using the aforesaid injections
of Buprenorphine only for the purpose of self medication and since the doses
were less than 100, the medical prescription is not required in this regard.
6. Therefore, this court is of the view that in view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the aforesaid judgment will be squarely applicable to
the petitioner and he deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the
present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular
bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
7. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the purpose of
decision of present petition.
06.12.2023 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156797
3 of 3
