Akashdeep Singh@Banti v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-462-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-462-2022
Reserved on: 21.03.2022
Pronounced on: 04.04.2022 Akashdeep Singh @ Banti
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Section 13.07.2021 City South, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 District Moga 1.
The petitioner, apprehending arrest for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), as per the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
2.
In paragraph 22 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.
3.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 4.
The contention on behalf of the State is that the FSL report has come and the quantity of the substance is commercial, and bail encourages habitual offenders. While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that drug menace is rapidly increasing.
REASONING:
5.
The quantity allegedly involved is 43.86 grams of Etizolam. The substance finds mentioned at entry no. 238ZZC of the table specifying small and commercial quantities, as per which the quantity greater than 2.5 gm falls in commercial quantity and lesser JYOTI 2022.04.06 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-462-2022 than 0.05 gm as small. Thus, the quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
6.
The grounds taken in the bail petition do not shift the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act. 7.
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC.
8. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. Interim bail granted vide order dated 10 Jan 2022 is withdrawn with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.04.2022 Jyoti-II JYOTI 2022.04.06 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document