JUDGMENT : Hon'ble KAUR, J.—The aforesaid four bail applications shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. These bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner Mahesh in Bail Application No. 7976/2015 has been arrested in F.I.R. No. 140/2015, Police Station Muklawa, District Sri Ganganagar, petitioner Salvinder Singh @ Surendra in Bail Application No. 8164/2015 has been arrested in F.I.R. No. 476/2015, Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh and petitioners Tarsam Kumar and Bhajan Lal in Bail Application No. 8454/2015 and petitioner Rajendra Singh in Bail Application No. 8308/2015 have been arrested in F.I.R. No. 230/2015, Police Station Keshrisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 8/21 & 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Sections 18(C), 27(B),(II) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while praying for bail submitted that the matter is covered under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and that it has been wrongly registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. To support their argument, it was contended that as per the Notification dated 30.08.2013 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the tablet Alprazolam has been added in Schedule – H1 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 2013 after deleting the same from Schedule-H, meaning thereby, that it cannot be sold without the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner and if it is, they will be covered under the Drugs Act. It was further contended that each tablet had the quantity of the contraband ingredients as specified and within the permissible limit and therefore, were being used only for medicinal purpose. It was further contended that even as per Rule 66 of the N.D.P.S. Rules, 1985, one could retain at least one hundred dosage units at a time without any prescription but beyond that and uptil three hundred dosage units, the prescription is required. 4. Reliance was also placed on the various judgments wherein the accused have been released on bail where they were found in possession of such drugs. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has pointed out that the drugs as recovered from the possession of the petitioners find mention under the Schedule of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, which provides that no person shall manufacture, possess, transport, sell, purchase, consume or use any of the psychotropic substances specified in the said schedule. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has pointed out that the drugs as recovered from the possession of the petitioners find mention under the Schedule of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, which provides that no person shall manufacture, possess, transport, sell, purchase, consume or use any of the psychotropic substances specified in the said schedule. Since the petitioners were in possession of the said drugs as specified under the said Schedule, the N.D.P.S. Act was applicable. It is further stated that as per Note 3 of the table relating to the respective drugs, the quantity shown in Column 5 and 6 of the table shall apply to the entire mixture, meaning thereby that, not only the quantity of the psychotropic substance in the particular drug as per dosage will be taken into consideration but entire recovery. Hence, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the fact that it is a small quantity. 6. Without going into the fact as to whether the matter is covered under the N.D.P.S. Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act, suffice it to say for the purpose of bail that all these drugs are manufactured to be supposedly used for medicinal purpose, although, allegedly being misused for intoxication purpose. 7. The observations of the learned Single Bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 1998 CriLJ 1460 are relevant :- “20. As regards the plea that the preparation in question is being widely used for intoxication purposes, this fact in itself is not enough for the prosecution of the petitioner. It has to be borne in mind that the Act applies to certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not to all kinds of intoxicating substances. It may be stated that all penal statutes ought to be construed strictly, that is to say, that the Court must say that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words so as to bring it within the mischief of the statute. It may be stated that all penal statutes ought to be construed strictly, that is to say, that the Court must say that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words so as to bring it within the mischief of the statute. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition at page 239 says, the strict construction of penal statutes seems to manifest itself in four ways in the requirement of express language for the creation of an offence; in interpreting strictly words setting out the elements of an offence; in requiring the fulfillment to the letter of statutory conditions precedent to the infliction of punishment and in insisting on the strict observance of technical provisions concerning criminal procedure and jurisdiction.” 8. Even under Rule 66 of the N.D.P.S. Rules, an individual is allowed to possess upto one hundred dosage without prescription. The relevant rule reads as under :- “66. Possession, etc. of psychotropic substances - (1) No person shall possess any psychotropic substance for any of the purposes covered by the 1945 Rules, unless he is lawfully authorized to possess such substance for any of the said purposes under these Rules. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), any research institution, or a hospital or dispensary maintained or supported by Government or local body or by charity or voluntary subscription, which is not authorized to possess any psychotropic substance under the 1945 Rules, or any person who is not so authorized under the 1945 Rules, may possess a reasonable quantity of such substance as may be necessary for their genuine scientific requirements or genuine medical requirements, or both for such period as is deemed necessary by the said research institution or, as the case may be, the said hospital or dispensary or person : Provided that 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: Provided further than an individual may possess the quantity of exceeding one hundred dosage units at a time but not exceeding three hundred dosage units at a time for his personal long term medical use if specifically prescribed by a Registered Medical Practitioner. (3) The research institution, hospital and dispensary referred to in sub-rule (2) shall maintain proper accounts and records in relation to the purchase and consumption of the psychotropic substance in their possession.” 9. In the present case, the only allegation is that the drugs were in the possession of the petitioners without license. Section 18(C) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 prohibits manufacture for sale or distribution of any drug except in accordance with the conditions and a license issued for such purpose. Section 18 reads as under:- “18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics – From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf - (a) ............. (b) ............. (c) (manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale,) or distribute any drug (or cosmetic), except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a license issued for such purpose under this Chapter;” 10. In case of any violation of the said provision, the punishment is provided in Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as under :- “27(b)(ii) without a valid license as required under clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall (not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more)” 11. Thus, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is competent and self sufficient in itself to deal with the allegations as alleged herein. There is no allegation that the said drugs which are found in the possession of the petitioners are manufactured by a unregistered company or a company which does not have a license to do so or they contained psychotropic substances in excess of permissible limit and were in a different form than as manufactured and packed to be sold as medicine by chemist and medical practitioner. 12. 12. Taking into account these facts, the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRM-M No. 1379 of 2013 (Ravinder Singh @ Rinku vs. State of Punjab) decided on 24.05.2013, Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014(1) RCR (Criminal 179 (P&H) and Ashwani Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 715 (P&H) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Manikali Siva Prasad vs. State of A.P. & another reported in 2011(8) RCR (Criminal) 1248 (Andhra Pradesh) granted bail in similar circumstances. 13. In view of the above discussion, all the four bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Mahesh S/o Chagan Lal in Bail Application No. 7976/2015, (2) Salvinder Singh @ Surendra S/o Jangir Singh in Bail Application No. 8164/2015, (3) Tarsam Kumar S/o Hansraj, (4) Bhajan Lal S/o Lilu Ram in Bail Application No. 8454/2015 and (5) Rajendra Singh S/o Raj Singh in Bail Application No. 8308/2015 shall be enlarged on bail in the respective FIRs provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.