Dismissed

Puneet Garg v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2015CRM-M/1159/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail in a drug trafficking case under the NDPS Act and IPC. The court noted the recovery of psychotropic substances in commercial quantity and the petitioner's status as a habitual offender involved in other FIRs. The bail application was rejected for failing to satisfy statutory bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; petitioner remains in custody.

Puneet Garg Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

CRM-M No. 1159 of 2014 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No. 1159 of 2014 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision : 18.11.2015

¶5

Puneet Garg

¶6

................Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

.................Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

¶11

Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Reeta Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Hanspal Virk, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

P.B. Bajanthri, J.

¶17

Petitioner – Puneet Garg seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 129 dated 19.9.2013, under Sections 21/22/25/27A/29/61/85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, for short “NDPS Act') and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

¶18

(2) As per the allegations contained in the FIR, one ASI Kashmir Singh headed the police party, was patrolling near Cheema

¶19

BANITA CHUGH 2015.12.08 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M No. 1159 of 2014 -2-

¶21

Chowk, Ludhiana. They stated to have received a secret information that Nitin Goyal s/o Pawan Goyal and Pawan Goyal s/o Ruldu Ram, who were already involved in drug-trafficking, have opened Pharmaceutical Companies known as (i) H.L. Medicines; (ii) Shri Krishna Agencies and (iii) Atlas Pharmaceuticals alongwith their other partners in Ludhiana. Another person, namely, Deepak Soni has also joined hands with them and has set up a Pharmaceutical establishment known as B.G. Pharma at Pindi Estate, Ludhiana and all of them in connivance with each other are dealing in intoxicant medicines like tablets, capsules, syrups, injections and other intoxicant powders without bills, fake bills and by preparing forged documents and by way of conspiring in huge quantities to various godowns and supply from there to Pindi Street, Ludhiana and other areas of Punjab to their customers without bills or fake bills with the help of transporters.

¶22

(3) Pursuant to secret information, FIR was registered and raids were conducted, whereupon 8,65,000 intoxicant capsules, 1,34,50,000 intoxicant tablets, 12000 intoxicant injections and 1400 intoxicant small bottles of syrup were recovered.

¶23

(4) Admittedly, the petitioner's name does not figure in the FIR. During the investigation, Investigation Officer came to know that petitioner – Puneet Garg used to have conversation with the accused Pawan Goyal and Nitin Goyal on his mobile phone. On suspicion, petitioner Puneet Garg was arrested on 15.10.2013. Based

¶24

on call details with the accused Pawan Goyal and Nitin Goyal, on BANITA CHUGH 2015.12.08 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶25

CRM-M No. 1159 of 2014 -3-

¶26

18.10.2013, the petitioner was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner – Puneet Garg gave disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. With reference to the disclosure statement, intoxicant drugs i.e. 35 injections of Buprenorphine 2 ml each were recovered from a railway track at Sangrur.

¶27

(5) The recovery effected from the petitioner is of 'commercial quantity'. The petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2013.

¶28

(6) The petitioner relied upon Rule 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, (hereinafter, for short 'the NDPS Rules) to contend that even without any medical prescription, 100 doses of such like psychotropic substances could be retained by him.

¶29

(7) Learned counsel for the State opposed the plea of the petitioner stating that he is not entitled to bail, firstly on the ground that 35 injections of Buprenorphine, 2 ml each recovered from a railway track at Sangrur fall under the 'commercial quantity'. Secondly, learned State counsel has pointed out that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in following cases also :-

¶30

(A) FIR No. 13 dated 6.1.2010, u/s 22/61/85 NDPS

¶31

Act, Police Station City Sangrur.

¶32

(B) FIR No. 228 of 2012, u/s 22/61/85 NDPS Act,

¶33

Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur.

¶34

(C ) FIR No. 238 of 2011, u/s 386/506 IPC, Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.

¶35

BANITA CHUGH 2015.12.08 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶36

CRM-M No. 1159 of 2014 -4-

¶37

(8) Learned State counsel has filed an additional affidavit furnishing recovery details in FIR No. 228 of 2012, u/s 22/61/85 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur (mentioned above), i.e. 80 bottles of Rexcof, 50 bottles of Lomotil containing 100-100 tablets and total 5000 tables, 300 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon containing 24-24 capsules in each strip and total 7200 capsules. In the additional affidavit, the learned State counsel also submitted that two more FIRs namely, FIR No. 209 dated 2.7.2014 under Section 52-A of the Prison Act and FIR No. 365 dated 4.12.2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC were registered against the petitioner at Police Station City Sangrur.

¶38

(9) Heard counsel for the parties.

¶39

(10) In view of the abovesaid factual position, the petitioner

¶40

has miserably failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the Act, hence the bail application is liable to be rejected he being habitual offender who is involved in three other cases as well.

¶41

November 18, 2015. chugh

¶42

BANITA CHUGH 2015.12.08 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Puneet Garg v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Garg v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh Vs Distt. Dev. & Panchayat Officer Roopnagar & Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Ors. Vs New Mandi Township Punjab

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhdev Sngh @ Sukha Vs State of Punjab

M/S Montek Biopharma Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Kumar Goyal Vs State of Punjab