Lovepreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

Sr. No.209 -A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31744 of 2019 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 30.09.2020 Lovepreet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Walia, AAG Punjab.

(Presence marked through video conference) ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 186 dated 01.07.2018, registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station City, Rajpura.

2.

Per FIR, on 01.07.2018 the petitioner was apprehended by a police party while having in his possession 18 injections of Buprenorphine (2 ml) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not involved in any other case. He is in custody for more than 2 years and 02 months. According to him, there is violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act.

4.

He further submits that as per proviso to Section 66(ii) of the NDPS Rules 1985, 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. He relies on judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court titled Saleem Mohd Vs State of Punjab, CRM M 16868 of 2018 decided on 04.07.2018 , reported as 2015 (2) RCR Crl. 816, wherein bail has been granted to the petitioner therein, in somewhat similar circumstances.

5.

He further submits that as per allegations the petitioner was found to be in possession of 18 injections of Buprenorphine, which though is a psychotropic substance but first proviso to Rule 66( ii) of NDPS Rules 1985 favours the petitioner. It would a moot point during trial whether the petitioner had kept the same for medicinal purposes, contends learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the bail plea. He, however, admits that petitioner is neither involved in any other case nor presently there is any headway in trial due to Covid-19 pandemic. 7.

The veracity of above submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner shall be adjudged at the trial, which is presently held up due to Covid-19 pandemic. There is no likelihood of commencement or conclusion thereof anytime soon. Courts are currently working with restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic and are taking up only urgent matters. The petitioner is not involved in any other case and he is in custody for the past about 2 years and 02 months. The witnesses are official and thus, there is no occasion with the petitioner to influence or put pressure upon them. Accordingly, given the over all scenario and in keeping in view case of Saleem Mohd. (supra), I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping petitioner in custody any more.

8.

In the premise, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this juncture, the petitioneris admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, as the case may be. If while on bail petitioner is involved in any other case, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail granted to him.

9.

Petition stands allowed accordingly.

(ARUN MONGA) September 30, 2020 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No