Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-42157 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 06, 2017 Sandeep Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Piyush Chandel, Advocate for Mr.Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0217 dated 26.05.2016 under Sections 21B, 22B and 22C of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Tohana, District Fatehabad.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the allegations, 10000 tablets Microlit, 120 injections of Fortwin, 1160 tablets of Alprasafe-0.5, 3120 tablets of Prozolm-0.5, 320 Vineet Gulati 2017.04.07 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh tablets of Zolamac-0.5, 1200 tablets of Eqbrom-10, 6 bottles of Rexcof, 100

CRM No.M-42157 of 2016 -2milligrams cough syrup containing Codeine, 4600 tablets of Carisoma and 100 tablets of Carisol, were recovered from the petitioner. As per learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, this quantity falls under commercial quantity. The FSL report has also been received in this case. Otherwise also, keeping in view such a heavy recovery, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail. Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail in the case of commercial quantity. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

April 06, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.04.07 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh