Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rano vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
-1-
CRM-M-19515-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215 CRM-M-19515-2026
Decided on : 27.04.2026
RANO
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police Sta- District No. tion Petitioner(s) Rano 35 28.03.2024 21 & 22 of the Nakodar Jalandhar NDPS Act (Sec- Sadar (Rural) tion 29 NDPS Ac-
tand 342, 411, 482, 120-B IPC added subse-
quently)
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that present FIR JYOTI has been registered on the basis of secret information alleging that petitioner 2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CRM-M-19515-2026 has been involved in the business of selling drugs for a long time and 10 cases are already registered against her. He argues that the FIR was lodged even prior to the conduct of raid at the premises of the petitioner, which it- self casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version.
During the course of investigation, a raid was allegedly con- ducted at the dairy situated at the residence of the petitioner, from where 310 intoxicant tablets containing Etizolam, weighing 30.69 grams, were recov- ered. However, the said recovery was effected from the possession of co-ac- cused Karamjit Singh @ Bobby and not from the petitioner. Petitioner is im- plicated in the present case as accused solely on the basis of disclosure state- ment made by the said co-accused, who stated that he was running a de-ad- diction centre in the premises allegedly let out to him by the petitioner and her daughter. Accordingly, on the basis of such disclosure, offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been added, which is legally untenable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that, the pros- ecution story is inherently improbable as once the police had prior secret in- formation and conducted a raid with a team of eight armed officials, there was no possibility for the petitioner to escape from the spot, as alleged. Therefore, it creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged raid itself.
It is submitted that, although several cases have been registered against petitioner, she has been acquitted in the majority of them and only in one case she has been convicted, wherein she has already undergone the sentence, while in other cases, either she has been acquitted or awarded mi- nor sentences.
JYOTI2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CRM-M-19515-2026 It is also contended that, petitioner is in custody since Septem- ber 2024, and the trial is proceeding at a very slow pace. Out of a total of 61 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far, and thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. He further submits that, the main accused, namely Karamjit Singh @ Bobby, from whose possession the alleged recovery has been ef- fected, has already been granted bail vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in CRM-M-47365-2025 (Annexure P-2). Another co-accused, namely Baljin- der Kaur @ Baby, has also been granted bail vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-62339-2024 (Annexure P-3). Therefore, on the principle of parity, petitioner is also entitled to the concession of regular bail. Thus, prays for grant of bail.
4. On advance notice and in response to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned state counsel contends that pe- titioner does not deserve the concession of bail in view of her criminal an- tecedents as detailed here below:-
Sr.No. FIR Recovery Status 1 FIR No.182 dated 5 Kg poppy husk Acquitted on 28.10.1993 u/s 15 NDPS 15.03.1996 Act PS Sadar Nakodar District Jalandhar 2 FIR No.111 dated 7 Kg Poppy husk Acquitted on 25.04.2000 u/s 15 NDPS 10.01.2002 Act PS Sadar Nakodar District Jalandhar 3 FIR No.56 dated 639 Kg poppy Acquitted on 02.04.2005 u/s 15 NDPS husk 04.10.2006 Act PS Nurmehal Dis- trict Jalandhar 4 FIR No.70 dated 52 Kg poppy husk; Acquitted on 29.03.2013 u/s 15,21,29 6 grams Heroin 15.03.2016 JYOTI NDPS Act PS Sadar 2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- CRM-M-19515-2026 Nakodar District Jaland- har 5 FIR No.206 dated 15 grams Heroin Acquitted on 26.05.2014 u/s 15,18,22 and 50 grams in- 01.12.2019 NDPS Act PS Sadar toxicant substance Nakodar District Jaland- har 6 FIR No.25 dated 85 grams Heroin Acquitted on 18.03.2015 u/s 21 NDPS 16.12.2017 Act PS Goraya District Jalandhar 7 FIR No.85 dated 80 grams Heroin Acquitted on 20.08.2014 u/s 21,25,29 07.12.2017 NDPS Act PS Sadar SBS Nagar 8 FIR No.103 dated -- Acquitted on 08.09.2016 u/s 16.12.2019 323,324,326,506,148,14 9 IPC PS Kartarpur Dis- trict Jalandhar 9 FIR No. 20 dated 280 grams Heroin Acquitted on 26.02.2015 u/s 21, 25, 08.12.2017 29 NDPS Act, PS Sadar Banga, District SBS Na- gar 10 FIR No. 49 dated 7 Kg Poppy Husk Convicted on 18.02.2008 u/s 15 NDPS 03.12.2009; under- Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, gone 1½ months District Jalandhar 11 FIR No. 259 dated 10 Kg Poppy Husk Convicted on 02.09.2008 u/s 15 NDPS 14.01.2010; under- Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, gone 3½ months District Jalandhar 12 FIR No. 178 dated 111 Kg Poppy Convicted RI 10 27.08.2009 u/s 15 NDPS Husk years on Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, 19.08.2010; sen- District Jalandhar tence suspended by High Court 13 FIR No. 189 dated -- Convicted on 02.07.2013 u/s 420, 193, 07.03.2019; Fine 120-B IPC, PS Sadar Rs. 4000 Nakodar, District Jaland- har 14 FIR No. 73 dated 500 grams Heroin Convicted on 24.03.2007 u/s 15 NDPS 20.11.2009; under- Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, gone 3 months District Jalandhar 15 FIR No. 79 dated -- Under Trial 15.11.2022 u/s 8, 21 NDPS Act, PS NCB JYOTI Chandigarh 2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- CRM-M-19515-2026 16 FIR No. 34 dated 09 grams Heroin Under Trial 28.03.2024 u/s 21, 22 (named in disclo- NDPS Act, PS Sadar sure) Nakodar, District Jaland- har
He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and has been involved in a large number of cases, particularly under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further argued that although petitioner claims acquittal in several cases, the sheer number of cases registered against her clearly estab- lishes her continuous involvement in the illegal activities. It is submitted that the acquittals in earlier cases do not wipe out her antecedents, especially when multiple prosecutions under the NDPS Act have been initiated against her over a long period of time. Therefore, there is every likelihood that if pe- titioner is released on bail, she may again indulge in similar offences. Thus, prays for dismissal of concession of bail.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds sub- stance in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by observing that the alleged recovery in the present case has not been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner, but rather from the co-ac- cused. The implication of the petitioner is primarily based upon the disclo- sure statement of the co-accused, which by itself carries limited evidentiary value at this stage.
It is further noticed that petitioner is in custody since September 2024 and has undergone incarceration for a considerable period. The trial is progressing at a slow pace, as only 2 prosecution witnesses have been exam- JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- CRM-M-19515-2026 ined of total 61 prosecution witnesses so far and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take substantial time.
6. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that the main co-accused Karamjit Singh @Bobby, from whose possession the contraband was allegedly recovered, has already been granted the concession of bail (Supra). Another co-accused Baljinder Kaur @Baby has also been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on a similar footing, and the principle of parity is attracted.
With regard to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, al- though multiple cases have been registered against her, it is evident that she has been acquitted in the majority of such cases. The remaining cases either resulted in minor sentences or are pending trial. Thus, at this stage, the an- tecedents alone cannot be a ground to deny bail, particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
7. In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations leveled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in JYOTI any other case. 2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -7- CRM-M-19515-2026
8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
9. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in ac- cordance with law.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 27.04.2026 Jyoti-V Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO.
JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document