Regular bail may be granted to a lady accused in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity by considering humanitarian grounds, such as the presence of minor children, lack of criminal antecedents, and a prolonged period of judicial custody.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Musaib Shaikh appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191027240279 of 2024 registered with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act .

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The offence being very serious inasmuch as to have transacted in contraband Mephedrone weighing 72 grams – commercial quantity and whereas it would appear that the present applicant was the person from whom the commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered.

(ii) While the learned advocate Mr. Shaikh would draw the attention of this Court to the observations in thee FIR itself, which according to the learned advocate would reveal that the present applicant had acted as carrier only for a sum of Rs.5000/-, more particularly submission being as per the FIR that the sender of the contraband was one Mustaq Gulamrasul Shaikh, who was uncle of the present applicant and the proposed receiver was one Firdoshbanu, who was an aunt of the present applicant .

(iii) Learned advocate would also try and submit that both the senders and proposed receiver have been enlarged on regular bail by the learned trial Court as well as learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned advocate would submit that considering the role of the present applicant as a carrier and considering that the co-accused have been released, this Court may consider and release the present applicant.

(iv) While this Court is not impressed with the submissions made by the learned advocate, more particularly, to this Court, it would appear that the present applicant being the person from whom the contraband was found, the role attributed to the present applicant stands completely different than the role attributed to the co-accused, who have been released as observed hereinabove.

(v) As regards the allegation of the applicant only being a carrier, from the FIR clearly appears that the said version is one given by the present applicant.

(vi) Having observed hereinabove, yet this Court has considered the fact that present applicant is a lady a