Read Order: Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana
Chandigarh, August 9, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail in a narcotics case, but subject to the condition that the accused will not commit any offence falling under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 after his release on bail.
“In case of involvement of the petitioner in commission of any offence under the NDPS Act in future, his bail in the present case shall also be liable to be cancelled on application to be filed in this regard,” stated the bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi
The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that on October 24, 2020, a police party headed by ASI Ashok Kumar was on patrolling duty when they apprehended the petitioner, Rohtash Kumar, near Begu Road in Sirsa, Haryana.
On searching him as per the prescribed procedure, banned narcotic substances — 20 strips of Parvorin-Spas (Ridley), 100 mg of Tramadol Hydrocholoride, Diclofenac Sodium, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Chlorpheniramine Maleate each containing 10 capsules and totalling 200 capsules were recovered from the bag hung on the handle of his motorcycle, as per the prosecution.
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
The petitioner contended that the contraband allegedly recovered falls in the category of non-commercial quantity and rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS are not applicable. The petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. Trial is likely to take a long time and no useful purpose will be served by his further detention in custody. Therefore, the petitioner may be ordered to be released on bail.
On the other hand, the State Counsel argued that the petitioner kept in his conscious possession intoxicant tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride and does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
Deciding the matter, the bench stated that the state counsel has submitted that the contraband allegedly recovered does not fall in the category of commercial quantity and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.
“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the period of his custody, the fact that the contraband allegedly recovered falls in the category of non-commercial quantity and rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not applicable, the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and also the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid- 19, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail,” held the bench.
The bench further said that bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that he will not commit any offence under the NDPS Act after his release on bail and in case of involvement of the petitioner in commission of any offence under the NDPS Act in future, his bail in the present case shall also be liable to be cancelled on application to be filed in this regard.