JUDGMENT : 

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.147 dated 26.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 5.18 grams of Heroin, 100 intoxicant tablets color orange containing 9.3 grams (100x93 mg per tablet/ 1000) of active salt ‘Etizolam’ from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was initially arrested on 26.07.2024, thereafter, she was granted concession of interim bail vide order dated 26.09.2024 as the FSL report was not received at that point of time. Learned counsel has argued that upon receipt thereof, the petitioner herself surrendered on 04.03.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was initially arrested on 26.07.2024, thereafter, he was granted concession of interim bail vide order dated 26.09.2024 on account of non-receipt of FSL report; thereafter, upon receiving of FSL report, the petitioner is stated to have surrendered herself on 04.03.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 20.02.2025. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 03 have been examined and 02 have been given up till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 09.01.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year & 08 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the appellant is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the appellant in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances