- (1.) G. P. Srivastva, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 25-12-2005 the applicant was arrested and from his possession 800 gms. diazepam tablets, in all 4000 tablets, kept in four packs were recovered. The packets were kept in a white polythene bag which was held in the hand of the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the tablets are below the commercial quantity. He has argued that in the market diazepam tablets of only 2 mg. , 5 mg. and 10 mg are available. No tablet of 5 gm, 10 gm and 20 gm is available in the market. Besides that he has relied upon Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Sachin v. State of U. P. , 2003 (1) U. P. Crl. R. 561, wherein it was held that the recovery of 5000 tablets of diazepam which is less than the commercial quantity as mentioned in Government Notification. In the instant case there is a chemical report from Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala (Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit) which shows that the weight of 20 tablets of diazepam was 100 mg. Therefore the weight of 4000 tablets will come to 800 gms. which is above the commercial quantity, as the commercial quantity of diazepam is 500 gms. No such notification has been produced before me as mentioned in the above judgment. In the said judgment the weight of the each tablets recovered has not been mentioned.
(3.) IN the instant case Section 37 NDPS Act comes into play. There is nothing to presume that the accused has committed no offence. Moreover there is nothing to infer that if the applicant is released on bail he will not repeat the crime. There is no ground for bail. The bail application is rejected. Application rejected. .;