01Facts
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Crime No. 96/2026, registered for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
p. 2 · ¶ 2The prosecution alleged that police, acting on information, raided a house in Bidar on 28 May 2026 and found the petitioner in possession of 38.476 kg of ganja; she allegedly said she had purchased it from accused No. 2.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4The State opposed bail, citing the pending investigation, alleged similar cases, and risks of witness tampering, interference with the investigation, and further offending.
p. 3 · ¶ 3The petitioner submitted that she had been acquitted in one earlier case and discharged in another.
p. 4 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the prosecution’s objections and the allegation under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act
pp. 3–6 · ¶ 3–9ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s status as a woman and the circumstances identified by the Court warranted bail under the BNSS
p. 5 · ¶ 7 · p. 6 · ¶ 8–903Law Applied
The petition was brought under Section 483 of the BNSS, which the Court treated as the basis for considering regular bail.
p. 2 · ¶ 2The Court relied on Section 480 of the BNSS, reasoning that the petitioner, as a woman, was entitled to bail; it also noted that the alleged offence was not punishable by death or life imprisonment and carried a term of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years.
p. 5 · ¶ 7The alleged offence was under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
p. 2 · ¶ 2The order cites no precedent and does not discuss Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 480
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20
04Reasoning
The Court considered the prosecution’s allegations and objections but reasoned that, even assuming a prima facie case, the offence was not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the petitioner was a woman.
p. 5 · ¶ 7It further found that her permanent residence in Bidar and appropriately tailored conditions could address concerns about cooperation with the investigation and trial.
p. 6 · ¶ 8The earlier cases, one resulting in acquittal and the other in discharge, did not by themselves establish that she was a habitual offender; the Court also found no special ground to deny bail.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 6, 905Holding
The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.
p. 7 · ¶ 10Bail was subject to conditions requiring her to cooperate with the investigation, attend court as required, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation or trial, and not commit similar or other offences while the case is pending; breach would result in cancellation of bail.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 10Original Court PDF
YASMEEN NAAZvsTHE STATE THROUGH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
