Sumit Vs State of Haryana

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of the BNSS with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR No.359 dated 20.07.2023 registered under Sections 21, 22, 29 and 18-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act' ) at Police Station Parao, District Ambala.

¶11

As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant alongwith other police officials had set up a Naka in search of wanted criminals and drug peddlers and in the meantime, a secret informer informed that the petitioner, who was in the business of supplying the intoxicating injections was coming to that side with a huge quantity of intoxicating injections. Consequently, the police had set up a Naka and the petitioner was arrested after following due process of law.

¶12

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶13

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -2-

¶14

Even, 50 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ML each and 100 injections (vials of Avil of 10 ML each) were recovered from the petitioner without any valid and effective licence and as per the provisions of the NDPS Act, 20 grams of aforesaid drug was the “commercial quantity” of the contraband.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 20.07.2023 and is in custody for the last 01 year, 06 months and 21 days. He further contends that as per the story of the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 50 injections of Buprenorphine (02 ML each) and 100 injection (vials) of Avil (10 ML each) and it has been wrongly shown that the quantity of contraband fall within the ambit of “commercial quantity”. As per learned counsel, according to the first proviso to Rule 66(ii) of the “Act”, a person is legally authorize to keep/possess upto 100 doses of the above injection. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery was effected from the petitioner in the open place from his lower, but no private person was joined as a witness in the present case. He further contends that even the police had violated the mandatory provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, while making the recovery from the present petitioner. As per him, he was in custody for 01 year, 06 months and 21 days and the trial may take quite a long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Rule 66 of the

¶16

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶17

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -3-

¶18

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules 1985 (in short “NDPS Rules”) and the same has been reproduced as under:

¶19

“66. Possession, etc., of psychotropic substances.-3[(1) No person shall possess: any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered under 1945 rules, unless he is lawfully authorized to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these rules:

¶20

Provided that possession of a psychotropic substance specified in Schedule I shall be only for the purposes mentioned in chapter VIIA. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), any research institution, or a hospital or dispensary maintained or supported by Government or local body or by charity or voluntary subscription, which is not authorised to possess any psychotropic substance under the 1945 Rules, or any person who is not so authorised under the 1945 Rules, may possess a reasonable quantity of such substance as may be necessary for their genuine scientific requirements or genuine medical requirements, or both for such period as is deemed necessary by the said institution or, as the case may be, the said hospital or dispensary or person.

¶21

Provided that where such Psychotropic substance is in possession of an individual for his personal medical use the quantity thereof shall not exceed one hundred dosage units at a time:

¶22

[Provided further that an individual may possess the quantity of exceeding one hundred dosage limits at a time [but not exceeding three hundred dosage units at a time] for his personal long term medical use if

¶23

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶24

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -4-

¶25

specifically prescribed by a Registered Medical Practitioner']

¶26

(3) The research institution, hospital and dispensary referred to in sub-rule (2) shall maintain proper accounts and records in relation to the purchase and consumption of the psychotropic substance in their possession.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various judgments of this Court to contend that vide Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules possession of less than 100 units of Buprenorphine Leegesic would not be considered as an offence in case the same is required for medicinal use. Reliance has been made on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Saleem Mohd. vs. State of Punjab; 2015(25) R.C.R.(Criminal) 816. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶28

“5.The petitioner is in custody from last more than two years. There is no other case registered against him under the NDPS Act. The alleged contraband was not recovered from the petitioner's physical possession as he is said to have got it recovered while in custody.

¶29

6. The petitioner relies upon Rule 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 to contend that even without any medical prescription, 100 doses of such like Psychotropic substance could be retained by him.

¶30

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the total custody period of the petitioner; his past antecedents and the legal submission based upon Rule 66 ibid but without expressing any final

¶31

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶32

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -5-

¶33

opinion in relation thereto, we are satisfied that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars and as such he deserves to be granted the concession of regular bail.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed

¶35

reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-37530 of 2015 titled as Dr. Rajinder Singla vs. State of Punjab. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶36

“Buprenorphine Hydrochloride I.P. is also a medication and is used as a pain reliever. Recently, it is also being used to treat opiate addiction (such as addiction to heroin). It has legitimate uses as an analgesic and for de-addiction. However, it is also capable of misuser being a psychotropic substance. Perhaps because of this reason, it was left out of Schedule I to the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act but is very much regulated under the D and C Act and Rules.

¶37

As indicated above, Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is a Schedule H drug under the D and C Act and Rules and, though it is a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, it is not included in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules. That being the case, its manufacture, possession of sale is not prohibited. As such, there is no contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Rules. Consequently, the offence under Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act is not made out. Obviously, punishment under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act is also not attracted. Accordingly in these circumstances no offence under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act is

¶38

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶39

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -6-

¶40

made out, the petitioner would be entitled to bail. Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.”

¶41

Further reliance has been made on the judgment of this

¶42

Court rendered in CRM-M-38986 of 2018 titled as Nitin Rajput @ Raman vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.11.2018. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶43

“5. In the present case, the alleged recovery is 12 injections of Buprenorphine. As per proviso to Rule 66 of the NDPS Act, an individual can possess 100 doses of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride. The controversy with regard to Buprenorphine at Serial No.169 of the notification/Schedule of the NDPS Act, would be debatable as to whether it is a psychotropic substance or not.

¶44

6. In view of the conflicting opinion given in Kismat Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 329 and Ajaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 330, wherein it was held that Buprenorphine falls under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the salt has not been included in the Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, whereas as per judgment in case Dilip Kumar Virvani and others Vs. State of Chattishgarh, 2014 (35) RCR (Criminal) 329, Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance within the meaning of Section 2 (xxiii) of the Act. Same issue was there in judgments of this Court in cases Amandeep Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M No.250 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2018, Sonu Vs. State of Punjab CRMM No.30008 of 2017 decided

¶45

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶46

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -7-

¶47

on 06.10.2017 as well as Sulakhan Singh @ Billa Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M No.1010 of 2018 decided on 24.01.2018.

¶48

7. Accordingly, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in above said judgments and the orders passed under the similar circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Nitin Rajput @ Raman) is directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”

¶49

Further reliance has been made on the judgment of this

¶50

Court rendered in CRM-M-14155 of 2020 titled as Sukhwinder

¶51

Kumar vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.06.2020. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶52

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the FIR are that 85 injections of Avil and 85 injections of Buprenorphine each containing 2 ml. are stated to have been recovered from the petitioner. He further contends that Avil does not constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is in custody for over one year and six months and is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He has relied upon the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Dalwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM M-10753-2019 on 03.05.2019 whereby the petitioner therein, who was in possession of 15 injections of Buprenorphine containing 2 ml each, was granted regular bail after having put in about a year in custody; in the case of Kamaljeet Singh @ Kamal versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM-M 4538 of 2019 on 13.03.2019, whereby the petitioner therein, who was in possession of 12 injections of Buprenorphine containing 2 ml each,

¶53

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶54

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -8-

¶55

was granted regular bail after having put in about nine months in custody and in the case of Kuldeep Singh versus Union Territory, Chandigarh, passed in CRM M-1400- 2018 on 19.01.2018 whereby the petitioner therein, who was in possession of 12 injections of Buprenorphine containing 2 ml each, was granted regular bail after having put in about three months in custody. Learned State counsel, upon instructions from SI Pargat Singh, Police Station Phillaur, contends that the petitioner is in custody for 01 year, 04 months and 17 days. He also contends that 01 out of 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined. Heard through video conferencing. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over one year and four months; he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act; the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.”

¶56

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently

¶57

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner falls within “commercial quantity” and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matters of Union of India vs. Niyazuddin SK & another; AIR (2017) SC 3932 and State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh etc; 2020(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 818, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶58

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶59

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M) -9-

¶60

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

¶61

the record.

¶62

This Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules still hold good and have not been set aside by any Court. Still further, in the present case, the petitioner is in custody for 01 year, 06 months and 21 days and the State has failed to place on record any evidence to show that there is likelihood of his tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses of the prosecution. Still further, in view of the Rule 66 of the NDPS Rule, at this stage, there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner might not be guilty of the alleged offence.

¶63

So keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in various judgments and totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions:-

¶64

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

¶65

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case.

¶66

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the

¶67

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶68

CRM M-17008 of 2024 (O&M)

¶69

-10-

¶70

Court concerned. (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

¶71

(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.

¶72

(vi) In case, the petitioner involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously.

¶73

(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner.

¶74

(viii) The petitioner shall report every 1st Monday of English calender month before the concerned SHO till the conclusion of the trial and SHO shall mark his presence by making an entry in the Rojnamcha”.

¶75

10.02.2025

¶76

amit rana

¶77

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE

¶78

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶79

Yes/No

¶80

AMIT RANA 2025.02.24 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

Sumit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrik Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sharanjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raghuvir Singh Alias Dhanna Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish @ Jagdish Raj Vs State of Punjab

Bhola Nath Vs State of Punjab

Jasvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab