CRM-M-20203 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-20203 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.12.2011 Jagdeep Singh @ Rinchu . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.25 dated 10.3.2011 under Sections 22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Division No.2, District Jalandhar. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of various medicines without any license or a bill. The recovered medicines have been found to be a psychotropic substance and were more than the commercial quantity. The learned trial Court declined the bail application of the petitioner vide its order dated 6.6.2011 in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the pure drug content in each tablet is to be considered then it would not fall within the commercial quantity and that only 50 tablets were sent for chemical analysis whereas all the tablets should have been sent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In view of the notification No.S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009 and the decision of this Court passed in CRM-M-20589 of 2011 titled as “Gurinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab” decided on 29.8.2011, it is not only the pure drug content which is to be seen but the entire weight CRM-M-20203 of 2011 - 2 - is to be considered for the purpose of determination as to whether it falls within the commercial quantity or non-commercial quantity and it is not required that all the tablets should be examined by the Chemical Analyst as he can decide the drug content on the basis of its sample. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 12, 2011 JUDGE Vivek