ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Y.B.Brahmbhatt for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Maithili Mehta for the Respondent – State.

2. By way of this application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’, for short), the applicant has prayed for enlarging him on regular bail in connection with the First Information Report (‘FIR’, for short) being No. 11191008211687 of 2021 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Dist.Ahmedabad City dated 16.11.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 8C, 20B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt for the applicant from the FIR submitted that the contraband Ganja weighing 12 kg and 900 gm was found from the house of the applicant and the same was purchased by her husband and not by the applicant. He submitted that the husband of the applicant is enlarged on bail by the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10349 of 2022.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt relied upon the order dated 13.07.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10349 of 2022 by the coordinate Bench of this Court whereby bail was granted to the husband of the applicant viz. Rajuji Arjanji Thakor. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt also relied on panch rojkam of spot of offence from where contraband Ganja was seized and by relying upon the same he submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that husband used to bring contraband Ganja and used to sell it.

3.3 Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt also relied upon an order dated 18.05.2022 passed in Bail Application No.409 of 2021 in the case of Ghulam Mohd Bhat vs. Narcotics Control Bureau through Intelligence Officer Jammu Zonal Unit 42 by High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu whereby the bail was granted to the accused.

3.4 By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt prayed for grant of bail in favour of the present applicant by submitting that actually the contraband Ganjo was brought to the house by the husband of the applicant and not by the applicant.

3.5 Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Toofansing Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020 (4) SCC 1.

4.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Mehta opposed the application preferred by the applicant and submitted that the applicant was found in conscious possession of the Ganjo weighing around 12 kg 785 gr amounting to Rs.1,27,820/-. She submitted that the petitioner along with her husband used to sell the Ganja as they used to bring it at Rs.8000/- per kg and sell it Rs.10,000/- per kg. She submitted that when the premises was raided the petitioner was found at the premises and from her possession contraband Ganja was recovered.

4.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Mehta submitted that the judgment cited by learned advocate for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case as the judgment relied upon by learned advocate in the case of Toofansing (supra) is against the order of conviction whereas in the present case the petitioner is praying for bail. The petitioner was found in conscious possession of contraband Ganja and, therefore, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. She further submitted that the case of the husband of the petitioner stands on different bail as while granting bail to the husband of the petitioner, the coordinate Bench vide order dated 13.07.2022 specifically observed that the husband of the petitioner was not found at the premises. As far as the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by High Court of Jammu and Kashmir And Ladakh at Jammu is concerned the facts were different to the facts of the present and, therefore, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

5. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and I have also conside