Introduction

The case of Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab was adjudicated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on November 10, 2020. The petitioner, Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky, sought regular bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, contending that his possession of certain psychotropic substances was for personal medical use and thus exempt from criminal penalties. The State of Punjab opposed the bail on the grounds that the quantities involved fell within the commercial possession threshold under the NDPS Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court examined the applicant's custody period, the nature and quantity of the substances in possession, and the applicability of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985. The petitioner had been in custody since August 17, 2018, with charges framed on February 2, 2019, and only four out of nine prosecution witnesses examined. The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial's progress and the petitioner's medical needs for Buprenorphine Rexogesic, a substance used for opioid addiction treatment.

After evaluating precedents and the specifics of the case, the court granted the petitioner regular bail, emphasizing the provisions under Rule 66 that allow possession of psychotropic substances for personal medical use within prescribed limits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited previous cases to establish a consistent legal framework:

• Saleem Mohd. v. State of Punjab (2015): Recognized the permissibility of possessing psychotropic substances for medical use under Rule 66.
• Dilip Kumar Virvani & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2014): Affirmed that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance but not included in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, thus not constituting an offense under Section 8 of the NDPS Act.
• Kuldeep Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2018): Granted bail to a petitioner possessing Buprenorphine injections, considering the quantity and intention for medical use.
• Other regional judgments were referenced to reinforce the court's stance on personal medical possession and the non-criminal nature of such cases when within prescribed limits.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several key points:

• Application of Rule 66: Rule 66 permits the possession of psychotropic substances for genuine medical use, provided the quantity does not exceed 100 dosage units. The petitioner possessed 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic, which falls below this threshold.
• Nature of Buprenorphine: Recognized as a medication for opioid addiction, Buprenorphine Hydrochloride has legitimate medical applications and is regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, not entirely under the NDPS Act.
• Proportionality of Custody: The petitioner had been in custody for over two years with minimal progress in the trial, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which justified the release on bail to prevent undue hardship.
• Absence of Commercial Intent: The State failed to demonstrate that the possession was for commercial purposes, weakening the argument against bail.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the possession of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act:

• Clarification on Medical Possession: Reinforces that possession of psychotropic substances for personal medical use, within prescribed limits, does not constitute an offense.
• Judicial Discretion on Bail: Empowers courts to consider medical necessities and prolonged custody periods when deciding on bail applications under the NDPS Act.
• Precedential Value: Serves as a guiding precedent for lower courts in similar cases, promoting consistency in the application of bail provisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab underscores the importance of distinguishing between legitimate medical use and illicit possession of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act. By upholding Rule 66 and considering the petitioner's prolonged custody and medical needs, the court emphasized a balanced approach that safeguards individual rights without undermining the stringent provisions of drug control laws. This judgment not only provides clarity on the application of Bail provisions under the NDPS Act but also sets a compassionate precedent for cases involving medically necessary drug possession.