Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 214 (HP)

SANJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-02

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. Sh. Kalyan, HC No. 211, I/O Police Station Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur is present. 2. In connection with F.I.R. No. 13/13 dated 9.1.2013, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, petitioner stands arrested. He filed an application for grant of bail which stands rejected by the trial Court in terms of order dated 28.2.2013. Thereafter, petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking bail in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. It is a settled position of law that rejection of bail by the trial Court shall not come in the way of the present petitioner in approaching this Court for grant of bail. 3. It is urged by Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. has been wrongly registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) for the reason that the salt (drug) pertaining to which the capsules were allegedly recovered from the petitioner does not fall within Scheduel-1 of the Rules framed under the NDPS Act. It is also urged that the recovered substance i.e. Dextro Pre-Proxyphine napsilete is below 100 mg and in any event does not fall within the definition of psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. Still further it is urged that Codine which is contained in the bottles is below 100 gm. In support of his contention he has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2007) 1 SCC 355 as also the following decisions rendered by various High Courts of the land: Usv Ltd. & another vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2006 (6) MHLJ 461 ; Rajeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab, [1998] 1 EFR 560/[1997] 4 RCR (Cri) 846; Pawan Kumar vs. State of Punjab, CRR No. 165 of 2009, decided on 28.1.2010 (P&H); Ashwani Kumar Tuli vs. State of Punjab, [2011] 1 RCR (Cri) 314; Harpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. M-36158 of 2012, decided on 10.1.2013; Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. Misc. No. M-36158 of 2012, decided on 10.1.2013; Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. M-14598 of 2008, decided on 17.1.2011; Deep Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 417; Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 664; Sukhwinder Singh alias Sonu vs. State of Punjab, Cr. Misc. No. M-15982 of 2012, decided on 10.1.2013; Satwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, Cr. Misc. No. M-7820 of 2010, decided on 19.1.2012. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that 13680 capsules of Spasmo proxyvon, with each capsule containing Dextro Pre- Proxyphine napsilete 100 mg, were recovered from the petitioner. The total weight of these capsules was 1 k.g. and 368 grams. In addition, twenty bottles of Rancof syrup were also recovered from the petitioner. In my considered view petitioner has not explained the circumstances under which he was carrying such huge quantity of the drugs in question. Petitioner is not an authorized dealer or manufacturer of such drugs. The crime is heinous and having far reaching consequences on the society, especially the younger generation. Cases of drug use and abuse are on the rise. Peddlers and couriers have to be treated sternly. The question as to whether the alleged crime falls within the ambit and scope of provisions of NDPS Act or not is to be seen by the trial Court and it is open for the petitioner to urge the same at the time of framing of charge. Needless to add, at that time the decisions rendered by various courts can be cited and the Court is duty bound to consider the binding ratio of the law laid down therein, with reference to the facts in question. As such, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. It is stated at the bar that the case is fixed before the trial Court on 4.4.2013. It is expected of the Court below to hear the parties for consideration of the charge at the earliest. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. Petition stands disposed.