A petition was filed Under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure i.e. Special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail and the High Court and the Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction with regard to granting of bail. However, The petitioner was convicted under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 i.e. where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years and Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 6th of July, 2021 in the case Ranjit Singh v/s state of Punjab CRM-M-24616-2021 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, the proceedings of the court was held in a virtual platform, Mr. Angel Walia represented the petitioner and Mr. Randhir Singh represented the state of Punjab.
The following are the facts of the case, The petitioner was accused under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, and FIRno.40 on 4/03/2021 were filed against him at the police station Samrala, Khanna, Ludhiana. The counsel for the petitioner laid down before the courts that the petitioner while he was traveling from Ludhiana to Amritsar he had been falsely implicated and the reason behind this is because he is not a member of the ruling party. According to the counsel the petitioner has not been involved in any other case previously. Further, the counsel explains the following is in the category of non-commercial quantity consisting of 52.8 grams of spasmo, 26 grams of Lomotil, and 50.4 grams of alprasafe. It has been submitted before the courts that all of the above is the recovery made from the petitioner and this is the reason he has not been hit by the bar contained under section 37 of the NDPS act i.e. “where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail”.
According to the counsel of the petitioner, even after the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was held in custody since 4/03/2021. Now the according to the state of Punjab, the counsel submitted that the petitioner has been confined under the law and it is legal and the investigation has been complete as well and the custody was since 4/04/2021. According to the respondent, the petitioner has been in possession of three categories of contraband i.e. goods that have been imported or exported illegally. And therefore, regular bail should not be permitted to the petitioner.
Furthermore, the court held that, there is no dispute in the custody period and there is no dispute in the investigation and that it has already been completed. It has also been proven that the petitioner has not been involved in any other case previously. And regarding the recoveries made of the contraband and the different salts, all of them fall in the non-commercial quantity.In conclusion, the court held that “In view of the above and considering the totality of the circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.”