Allowed

Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Aug 2017CRM-M/20997/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC regarding an NDPS case involving Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner who had been in custody for over nine months. The court emphasized the initial stage of the trial and lack of other charges. The judgment explicitly reserved expression on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-20997 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-20997 of 2017 Date of Decision: 30.8.2017

Satwinder Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

¶10

Present: Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 35 dated 3.8.2016, under Section 21/22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City Banga, SBS Nagar.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 7.3.2017. Earlier also, the petitioner remained in custody from 4.8.2016 to 22.11.2016. Thus, the petitioner is in custody for more than nine months. She has further argued that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 35 vials of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and in view of proviso attached to Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 an individual can possess 100 doses of the same for his personal medical use. She has also relied upon Saleem Mohd. Versus State of Punjab 2015 (25) R.C.R., (Criminal) 816 and Ajaib Singh versus State of Punjab 2012 (2)

¶16

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia2017.08.30 17:59 R.C.R. (Criminal) 330 to contend that Buprenorphine does not fall under I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-20997 of 2017 -2-

¶18

the definition of psychotropic substance.

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the total quantity of 35 Buprenorphine vials, which contained 2 ML each, comes to 70 gm. Therefore, falls in commercial quantity as the quantity below 20 grams comes under non-commercial quantity.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Having considered the case of Saleem Mohd. 's case (supra) and noticing the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than nine months and no other case has been pointed out against him and the trial is at initial stage and it will take time, I deem it appropriate to release him on regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶22

However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the case.

¶23

(HARI PAL VERMA) JUDGE

¶24

August 30, 2017 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶25

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.08.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwinder Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darbara Singh Vs State of Punjab

Subhash Chand Vs State of Haryana

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gaurav Garg Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Pooja and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Prem Bhardwaj Vs State of Punjab & Ors.