RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF URTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that accused/applicant- Dr. R. K. Gupta, is Director of Neeraj Clinic, Rishikesh. In said Clinic, it is alleged that in the name of treatment of epilepsy, banned drugs under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were being stored and sold. On raid in said clinic, huge amount of such drugs were al leged to have been found. The banned drugs included Chlordiazepoxide and Phenobarbital. These two drugs are mentioned in the Schedule of the Nar cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub stances Act, 1985 (for brevity herein after NDPS Act ). A crime No. 303 of 2004, appears to have been registered against the accused/applicant under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act and under Section 147, 224, 323, 504, 506, 353, 420 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 4 of Drugs Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act. Accused/applicant appears to have been arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on 3/4 Octo ber, 2004.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that Pub lic Prosecutor was given due opportu nity to oppose the bail and is heard at length. Now, this Court has to satisfy if there are reasonable grounds for believ ing that the applicant / accused is or is not guilty of such offences, as are men tioned in Section 37 and that if he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Offence under Section 8 of NDPS Act, 1985, is punishable under its Section 22. Section 8 prohibits the possession and sale of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent pro vided by the provisions of this Act or Rules. Learned counsel for the appli cant argued that Section 22 is not the Section mentioned in Section 37. From the bare reading of the Section, it is clear that the expression "and also for offences involving commercial quan tity" mentioned in the Section is to be read with offences either Section 19 or 24 or 27a. As such it cannot be said that Section 37 (b) is applicable to this case. Merely for the reason that offence under Section 8/22 is cognizable under Section 37 (a) of the Act, bail cannot be refused in each and every case.