Sadhu Singh And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Sadhu Singh and another (referred to as petitioner No.2), are licensed chemists seeking bail. They were arrested in connection with FIR No.138 dated 29.12.2022, registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) at Police Station, Maur, District Bathinda. The FIR stemmed from the recovery of 4,800 intoxicant tablets from two individuals apprehended in a car. Investigation revealed these tablets were purchased from a Delhi chemist. The petitioners, as licensed chemists, were implicated because their inventory did not tally with a batch of 5,200 strips of Alprazolam (52,000 tablets) purchased from M/s Lifeline Pharmaceutical. Petitioner No.1, Sadhu Singh, is 75 years old and petitioner No.2 is 55 years old, suffering from Type-2 diabetes. Petitioner No.1 was granted interim bail on 18.07.2023, and petitioner No.2 has been in custody since 18.01.2023. The petitioners argue that no recovery was made from them, and their GST returns account for their entire inventory.

Held

The Court allowed the petition, granting bail to petitioner No.2 and making the interim bail of petitioner No.1 absolute. The Court reasoned that petitioner No.2 had already been in custody for over seven months and fifteen days, and charges had been framed, meaning further custodial interrogation was not required. The Court found no documentary evidence to support the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, as the evidence was already seized and witnesses were official. The offence was considered non-violent, and the Court found a reasonable ground that petitioner No.2 might not be guilty of the alleged offence, deeming him unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. His age, medical condition, family responsibilities, and clean antecedents further supported the grant of bail. For petitioner No.1, who was already on interim bail due to his age and medical condition, the Court made the interim bail absolute until the pendency of the trial. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the limited purpose of the bail petition and would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the case. Any involvement in further offences while on bail would allow the prosecution to seek cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, as licensed chemists, can be held liable for the alleged unaccounted stock of Alprazolam tablets, given that they have paid GST on their entire inventory and no proceedings have been initiated by the Delhi Drug Inspectors or Delhi Police for inventory discrepancies? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the implications of GST compliance). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that they are licensed chemists and have paid GST on their entire inventory, as evidenced by their GST returns. They contend that any inventory discrepancies should be investigated by the Delhi Drug Inspectors, and the absence of any proceedings by them or the Delhi Police indicates no violation. They also highlight that no recovery was made from them, and they have no link to the alleged recovery from co-accused. Furthermore, they claim mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the investigation, and there is no likelihood of them tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Petitioner No.2's deteriorating medical condition and his role as the sole breadwinner were also emphasized. Revenue/State: Opposed the bail petition, submitting that the petitioners committed a serious offence. They argued that the recovery of contraband falls under commercial quantity, attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The State counsel also contended that if petitioner No.2 is granted bail, there are chances of him fleeing from justice.