Sohan Lal Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-39864-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39864-2020
Reserved on: 07.09.2022
Pronounced on: 27.09.2022 Sohan Lal alias Sonu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jashandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 18.03.2020 Gate Hakima, Distt.
Amritsar 21, 29 of NDPS Act 1.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing 500 grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity, in violation of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.
2.
In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3.
Based on the specific prior information naming the accused as carrying huge quantity of heroin, the police after complying with the provisions of NDPS Act and CrPC, confronted the accused, gave them option under section 50 of NDPS Act, and recovered 500 grams of heroin from him.
4.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.
While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls in the commercial category. REASONING:
6.
The substance involved in the present case is Heroin [Diacetyl morphine], and weighs 500 grams. The entry no. 56 of the table specifying small and commercial quantities, specifies the quantity greater than 250 grams as commercial quantity and ANJU RANI 2022.10.01 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39864-2020 lesser than 5 grams 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. 7.
Referring to the petition, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the quantity is marginally above the commercial. A reference to para 6 would reveal that the quantity recovered is 200% of commercial.
8.
The stand that the accused is in custody for sufficient time is also not a legal ground to overcome the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 9.
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 stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make a case for bail at this stage.
10.
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. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.09.2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2022.10.01 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH