Rozi Kaur vs State Of Punjab

Raj Mohan Singh, J

The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Petitioner is in second attempt seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.250 dated 02.05.2020 registered under

Sections 22, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala.

Earlier interim bail was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2020 passed in CRM-M No.17854 of 2020 in view of ratio laid down in

Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi Vs. State of Punjab 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953.

The FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information. Petitioner was arrested and 150 strips of intoxicant tablets each containing 10 tablets

were allegedly recovered from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the recovery memo submits that 'number' of FIR has appeared at the top of the recovery memo

which is not even signed by the petitioner. The preparation of the recovery memo at the time, when the FIR was not in existence creates serious

doubt qua the authenticity of the prosecution case.

Petitioner is a lady and keeping in view the stringent provisions of NDPS Act, a stricter test for compliance of statutory provision has to be fastened

upon the prosecution.

Learned State counsel, however, opposed the prayer on the ground that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.

The genuineness of the recovery memo would be debatable in view of FIR number appearing at the tope of it and document having not signed by the

petitioner. Petitioner is in custody for about more than four months.

Looking to the aforesaid facts, in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, I deem

it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.