Murti Kaur vs State Of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to her in case bearing FIR No. 37 dated 28.02.2025, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of interim bail, in alternative, on the ground of her being suffering from eye disease i.e. Glucoma. Her previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 28.02.2025, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 750 intoxicating tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride (weighing 275 grams) was effected from her conscious possession. Since the petitioner could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in her possession the recovered drugs, she was formally arrested at the spot. After completion of investigation, challan has been presented before the Court and the petitioner is now facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon her. The story put forth by the police party is concocted one. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with properly. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented before the Court. The petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2025. The trial is likely to take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping her in custody anymore. Pendency of some other cases of similar nature cannot be considered to be a ground for denying her concession of bail in this case. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Status report along with the custody certificate and medical status report of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was apprehended by the police party on 28.02.2025 and recovery of commercial quantity of contraband was effected from her. She is a habitual offender having several other cases of similar nature registered against her. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against her. There are chances of the petitioner’s absconding or committing similar offences, if released on bail. So far as the medical condition of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that she herself had refused to undergo surgery for cataract. It is, thus, argued that no case is made out for release of the petitioner either on regular bail or on interim bail and the dismissal of the petition is prayed for.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of 750 intoxicating tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, weighing 275 grams. The recovery is of commercial quantity, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As per the status report, the petitioner is involved in several other cases of similar nature, out of which, in four cases, she has been convicted and is facing trial in other cases. In these circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that she is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. So far as the prayer for interim bail on medical grounds is concerned, the medical status report does not disclose any circumstance warranting her release, particularly when she had herself refused to undergo cataract surgery. The petitioner may avail appropriate medical treatment in accordance with the jail rules. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, her criminal antecedents, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.