Instab Alam vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Instab Alam, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.139 dated 26.05.2019, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The FIR alleged that the petitioner was transporting a heavy quantity of intoxicant medicines (8000 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR) from Gafura to supply in Sunam and Sangrur. The recovery was made from his car during a Nakabandi. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, picked up from his chemist shop, and that he was a licensed chemist with a valid license until 08.02.2023. He produced a GST invoice dated 23.05.2019 for the purchase of medicines from Vivcare Lifesciences, which was verified as genuine. The State contended that while the petitioner was a licensed chemist and the bill was genuine, he failed to produce any authorization for possessing or transporting such a quantity of tablets at the time of recovery. The license and bill were produced later, on 17.06.2019, about 21 days after the recovery.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is a licensed chemist and the medicines recovered were purchased on a genuine bill. The Court noted that whether the petitioner was picked up from his chemist shop or arrested at a Nakabandi would be adjudicated during the trial. Crucially, the Court found that the petitioner was a first-time offender, had been in custody since 02.11.2022, and only one prosecution witness had been examined so far. In this factual scenario, the Court was satisfied that a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be recorded, making the petitioner eligible for bail. The Court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to appear before the police station on the first Monday of every month until the trial concluded and to deposit an FDR of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Trial Court, liable for forfeiture in case of absence from trial without sufficient cause. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, being a licensed chemist who purchased the recovered medicines on a genuine bill, can be considered to have committed an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985, particularly concerning the possession and transportation of intoxicant medicines, thereby attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, arrested from his chemist shop, and possessed a valid chemist license and a genuine GST invoice for the purchased medicines. He contended that there was no ban on keeping Tramadol, as evidenced by Forms 20-B and 21-B. He also highlighted that he was a first-time offender, in custody since 02.11.2022, with only one out of nineteen prosecution witnesses examined, suggesting the trial would be lengthy. State's Arguments: The State conceded that the petitioner was a licensed chemist and the bill was genuine. However, they argued that at the time of recovery on 26.05.2019, the petitioner failed to produce any bill, proof, or authorization for possessing or transporting the large quantity of tablets. The license and bill were only produced later. The State maintained that while the petitioner could keep the tablets in his shop, he could not transport or sell them without proper permission or authorization, thus constituting an offence.