The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act before granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. The court also emphasized the importance of imposing stringent conditions to prevent the accused from influencing the investigation or committing further offences.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

A woman, aged 25 years, incarcerating since Mar 14, 2021 for violating section 21 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), on account of the recovery of 41 kg. 200 grams of Ganja from the boot of the car, owned by her husband, and 10 kg 300 grams from the vehicle (MUV) of Fakrudin allegedly sold to him by petitioner's husband and his accomplices after taking it from the car, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (CrPC) seeking bail on the ground that she had married just two months earlier, was totally unaware of the activities of her husband, and had inadvertently become a partner in the alleged crime.

2. In paragraph 6 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.

3. The gist of the allegations is that on Mar 15, 2021, the police had received a secret information that Innus, Mubin, accompanied by a girl, were transporting ganja in a car, and would also be selling it to Fakruddin. The specific information was regarding the supply of ganja from Orissa for that day, i.e., 15.03.2021 at Transport Nagar Faridabad, where Fakruddin would take ganja from them. The police associated independent witnesses, reached the disclosed point,laid a trap where an exchange of ganja was supposed to take place, and concealed themselves. The police spotted the disclosed vehicle and noticed that three males along with a female, the petitioner herein, were sitting in the car.After a discreet wait, another vehicle, a MUV arrived and stopped, and one male descended from it. The three persons from the car handed over one packet to the person who had come in the MUV. Although the police immediately swung into action, yet all the three males managed to escape. However, the police party nabbed one female from the car, and she revealed her name as Abida, the petitioner herein. The police also apprehended the male from MUV, who revealed his name as Fakkrudin. The packet recovered from Fakkruddin was searched, and it contained 10 kg and 300 grams of ganja. On search by a Gazetted officer and a Magistrate, 41 kg 200 gms of ganja was recovered from the boot of the car in which the petitioner was sitting. After the search, the investigator arrested the petitionerAbida and Fakkrudin. The investigation and interrogation revealed that Innus, the petitioner's husband, owned and drove the car, and was one of the three males who had managed to run away.

4. Mr. Lokesh Vohra Ld. counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph 5 of the bail application wherein it is averred that the petitioner had married Innus only two months before her arrest, and she was unaware of his illegal activities and criminal antecedents, let alone participate in it. He contends that Abida was unaware of the contents of the brown parcel allegedly handed over to Fakkrudin by three male persons, and one of such persons was her husband named Innus, who owned the car and her mere presence in her husband's car does not constitute knowledge and possession of the contraband.

5. Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana opposes the bail and submits that the quantity of contraband is commercial and the petitioner has failed to overcome the rigors of section37 of NDPS Act. Ld. counsel for the State argues that whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of contraband would be a matter of trial on basis of evidence adduced. Ld. counsel further contended that the grant of bail encourages the drug peddlers and the drug menace is spreading day by day.

6. Ms. Aashna Gill, Ld. Amicus Curiae highlighted the judicial precedents on bail, with emphasis on section37 of NDPS Act. On facts, Ld. Amicus submitted that while other persons were named explicitly in secret information, no role was attributed to Abidaother than her mere presence in her husband's car, and probably, she was only mentioned d