RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 148 dated 17.08.2018 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Division No.l, Police Commissionerate, District Jalandhar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2018 and out of 09 witnesses, only 04 have been examined till date. He has further submitted that even otherwise, the alleged recovery from the petitioner was 70 injections of Pheniramine Maleate 10 ml Avil and 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each. He has further submitted that even if the allegations against the petitioner are taken to be true, the injection ofAvil does not fall within the purview of the NDPS Act and insofar as, the alleged recovery of 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each is concerned, he has relied upon the judgement of this Court in Salem Mohd Vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (25) RCR (Criminal) 816, to contend that in view of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985, any person can retain upto 100 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each in case it is required for own use and, therefore, he has prayed for the grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. ASI Rakesh Kumar, has stated that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2018 and out of 09 witnesses, only 04 have been examined so far. He has further stated that insofar as the alleged recovery of 70 injections of Avil is concerned, it is not covered under the NDPS Act, but the alleged recovery of 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each, is of commercial in nature and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of concession of regular bail.