211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 05, 2025 Gurmeet Kaur @ Gurjeet Kaur ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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.73 dated 18.06.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that she is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 5500 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride IP 100 mg, from the petitioner and other co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2023. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not 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 for the petitioner has iterated that, in any case, the prosecution evidence is at the fag end, and thus, the petitioner is not in a position to influence the trial. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. 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, she 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 05.09.2025 in Court, 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 arrested on 18.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 16.10.2023. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and out of them, 07 have been examined and 06 have been given up till date. There is yet another aspect, nay vital aspect of the matter that the entire prosecution evidence is at the fag end as only 02 prosecution witnesses are stated to have remained to be examined. 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. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-62189-2024 titled Harjinder Singh alias Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, decided on 16.07.2025 (2025:PHHC:086951), relevant part thereof reads thus:

“As the prosecution evidence nears its fag end, the very premise for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, a common ground for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in such circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ – when the reason