Subhash Chander vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash Chander, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. He was arrested on 13.11.2021, in connection with FIR No. 198 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station City Moga, District Moga. The police seized 14,760 tablets of EZM containing Etizolam from the petitioner's shop. The petitioner claims he is a medicine distributor and had legally purchased the tablets from Arun Medicines Chambers on the same day, paying GST, and possesses valid licenses to purchase and distribute such medicines. He argues the FIR was planted and the police acted with high-handedness by arresting him without giving him an opportunity to show the purchase bill, which was dated the same day. He has been incarcerated since 13.11.2021.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the petitioner had valid licenses (Annexures P-2 and P-3) to purchase and hold the medicines for distribution and had legally purchased the seized tablets after paying GST, as supported by Annexure P-4. The Court noted that the petitioner had produced the bill and license with the petition, and the State counsel could not justify the petitioner's continued custody in light of this evidence. Therefore, the Court held that at this stage, there was reason to believe the petitioner was not guilty of the offense. Concerning the second issue, the Court held that even if the seized quantity fell under the category of commercial quantity, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. The Court reasoned that a departure from the bar could be made due to the peculiar circumstances, as the petitioner was entitled to purchase and hold the medicines in accordance with law. Furthermore, considering the petitioner's antecedents and the State counsel not raising any objection regarding the likelihood of the petitioner repeating the offense, the second ingredient of Section 37 was also satisfied. Consequently, the Court deemed it fit and proper to grant bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of possessing a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, 1985? 2. Whether the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, applies in this case, preventing the grant of bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR was planted and no illegal activity was committed. He contended that he is a licensed medicine distributor and had legally purchased the seized tablets after paying GST, as evidenced by Annexures P-2, P-3, and P-4. He asserted that the police acted with high-handedness by arresting him without allowing him to produce the purchase bill, which was dated the same day. He further argued that despite the quantity being commercial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not apply due to the peculiar circumstances and his clean antecedents, as he is not likely to repeat the offense. He relied on his licenses and the purchase receipt. Respondent's Arguments: The State of Punjab, through the Deputy Advocate General, conceded that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.11.2021. They argued that the petitioner was arrested because he could not produce the bill or receipt of the medicines at the time of the raid, and therefore, it cannot be said that the police acted with high-handedness. The State also noted that the matter was under investigation.