Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjeet Kaur Alias Mata vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2022
CRM-M-12653-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223
CRM-M-12653-2022
Decided on : 30.03.2022
Karamjeet Kaur @ Mata
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 677
dated 23.12.2021 under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station
Kurukshetra University, District Kurukshetra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the
petitioner is sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the co-accused Raju from whom the recovery of 51
gms. of heroin/smack has been effected and the said quantity is much
lower than the stipulated commercial quantity which starts from 250
gms.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon
1 of 5
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, an order
passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-
12051-2020 titled "Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab", and an order of
another Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-
2020 titled as "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana" to contend that in
such like cases if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis
of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected
from the petitioner, then he should be granted the concession of regular
bail. It is further submitted that the said co-accused Raju, in his
disclosure statement, in addition to the present petitioner, had also
named Kawaljeet Kaur, who has already been granted the concession of
regular bail. It is further submitted that even Raju, from whom the
recovery had been effected has also been granted the concession of
regular bail. It is further contended that the petitioner has been in
custody since 25.12.2021 and there are as many as 14 witnesses out of
whom, none has been examined as yet and thus, the trial is likely to take
time. It is submitted that all the witnesses are official witnesses and
thus, the question of the petitioner influencing or threatening them does
not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner is suffering with
Tinea Corporis (ringworm/rashes caused by fungal infection) and also
has insomnia.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present application for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner
2 of 5
is involved in five other cases also. It is further submitted that the said
Kawaljeet Kaur, who has been granted the concession of regular bail,
was not involved in any other case. The other facts as mentioned by
learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by learned State
counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has
submitted that the petitioner is on bail in all the said five cases. He has
further submitted that as per settled law, it is the facts of the present
case which are required to be considered for the purpose of deciding the
present bail application. For the said proposition, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012 titled as
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (2)
SCC 382 reference has been made to the relevant portion of paragraph
6 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the
second respondent cannot be rejected. In other
words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role
of the accused in the case in which he has been
charged and other circumstances such as
possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of
the Court etc."
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paperbook.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been named in
3 of 5
the FIR and no recovery had been effected from her. The recovery has
been effected from one Raju and the said recovery is of 51 gms. of
heroin/smack which is much lower than the stipulated commercial
quantity which starts from 250 gms. The petitioner has been implicated
solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of Raju. As per the law
laid down in the cases of Tofan Singh, Mewa Singh and Daljit Singh
(supra), the disclosure statement made before the police is inadmissible
in evidence. There is no other incriminating evidence against the
petitioner. The co-accused Raju, from whom the recovery has been
effected, has already been granted the concession of regular bail. Even
Kawaljeet Kaur, who was the other person named in the disclosure
statement of said Raju, has also been granted the concession of regular
bail. All the witnesses are police officials and thus, the question of the
petitioner influencing or threatening the said witnesses does not arise.
The petitioner has been in custody since 25.12.2021 and there are as
many as 15 witnesses, out of whom none has been examined, thus, the
trial is likely to take time.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances,
and also in view of the law laid down in all the abovesaid judgments,
the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to her not being
required in any other case.
4 of 5
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case
which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail
application.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 30th, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
