Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1311 (PNJ)

Sanjay Kumar alias Soni v. The State of Punjab

2012-09-26

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No. 57076 of 2012 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No.M-29736 of 2012 1. Sanjay Kumar alias Soni, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 158 dated 25.08.2011 at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur, for an offence punishable under sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot. According to him, it is not a case of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2012. 3. It is revealed in a perusal of the contents of the FIR that a trap was laid on secret information, in which the petitioner was seen coming from the side of village Awankha having a polythene packet in his right hand. He was on foot. As the police had the name of the petitioner with it, HC Gopal Dass and HC Daljit Singh, the members of the police party laying trap, identified him as Soni son of Mulakh r/o Awankha. It is further revealed in the FIR that he was already known to those persons. After throwing the polythene packet, he ran away towards village Awankha. He could not be apprehended despite the police officials chased him. The polythene packet was found lateron to contain 540 grams of intoxicant powder which on analysis was found to contain Dextropropoxyphene. 4. Under the notification no. SO 2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009, the entire mixture and not the pure drug content is to be considered for finding out if the quantity recovered is commercial quantity or not. In these circumstances, the entire mixture i.e. powder is to be taken into account and it is, therefore, a commercial quantity as per the schedule. The provisions of section 37 of the Act come into play as the petitioner was possessing commercial quantity of the contraband. Nothing has been argued before me to show that the bar of section 37 of the Act would not apply in this case. Hence, I do not find any ground to hold the petitioner to be entitled to the concession of bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.