The court's decision was influenced by the quantity of contraband involved, the petitioner's personal circumstances, and the legal principles emerging from the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner under arrest for violating the provisions as mentioned above of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), per the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In Note (ii) of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents of NDPS offences.

3. The police had recovered 25 vials of Buprenorphine and 25 vials of Maleate injections from the petitioner's possession.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls in the commercial category.

REASONING:

6. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which she did not prove. Thus, this court is not considering the bail by overlooking the provisions of section 37 of NDPS Act but because the quantity of substance is not massive and the petitioner is a woman incarcerating since Apr 13, 2021, i.e., for one year and five months, with no criminal antecedents of NDPS Act, with a minor daughter of vulnerable age of 13 to take care.

7. On the foundations of Article 15 of the Constitution of India, the legislature carved out exceptions to uplift women and children under the first proviso to section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for a person below sixteen years of age, woman, sick and infirm, to meet the objectives of social justice as enshrined in India's Constitution.

8. In Maqsoodan v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 97, Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail on the facts of the case, coupled with the fact that the accused was a woman, and involved in a relatively less serious offence.

9. In LingaramKodopi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 3 SCC 474, Hon'ble Supreme granted bail to a woman by holding as follows:

[15]. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, both the appellants are on bail with the condition that they would not enter the State of Chhattisgarh during this period. Other two accused persons have already been granted bail. Charges are yet to be framed. Soni Sori is having medical problems as well. There are certain circumstances, pleaded by the appellants, and if ultimately established, there may be a possibility of proving the innocence of the appellants. Soni Sori has lost her husband and has to look after her children who are of tender ages.

LingaramKodopi, who is a young man of 24 years, claims to be genuinely attempting to establish himself as a good citizen in the society. Taking into consideration all these circumstances cumulatively and going by the past history, as demonstrated by both the Counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial on furnishing personal securities in the sum of L 50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

[16]. At the same time, we agree with Mr. Mohta that there should be some stringent conditions for grant of bail to the appellants. Accordingly, we order that it would be subject to the condition that the appellants shall report to the concerned police station once a week i.e. at 10.30 a.m. on every Monday to show their presence. They would be permitted to take along their lawyer. Further, they shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not seek exemption except when on a particular da