KULWINDER KAUR Vs. KULWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.0036 dtd. 8/3/2021 registered under Sec. 22(C)/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short "NDPS Act") at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a 65 year old lady, who is suffering from severe health problems and her vision is very weak and to substantiate the same, has relied upon the medical report (Annexure P-2). It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 8/3/2021 and she has been in cusody for more than last 1 year and 2 months and out of 11 prosecution witnesses, none have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner along with another lady were walking and on the basis of suspicion, they were apprehended and from each of them 114 grams of Alprazolam was recovered. It is stated that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was carrying the said substance in a transparent plastic bag. It is also stated that it is highly unlikely for a person who has to carry the contraband, to carry the same in a transparent polythene bag and with respect to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various orders passed by coordinate Benches of this Court i.e. order dtd. 2/8/2021 passed in CRM-M-4408-2021 titled as "Banti Kaur @ Bhanti Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, Jaskaran Singh @ Jassu Vs. State of Punjab, reported as 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 837, Binder Kaur @ Goga Vs. State of Punjab reported as 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 360, and order dtd. 28/2/2020 passed in CRM-M-8026-2020 titled as Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha Vs. State of Punjab.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that recovery of total 218 grams of Alprazolam has been effected from the petitioner and her coaccused. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act and thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.