Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumari @ Babbe vs State Of Punjab on 23 November, 2022
CRM-M-52567-2022 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52567-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 23.11.2022
Ramesh Kumari @ Babbe .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.185 dated
12.10.2022 under Sections 21(b), 29 NDPS Act registered at Police Station
Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while police party was on a
patrolling duty, then from the side of Dida Sasian, one lady was seen coming
on foot who on seeing the police party got perplexed and tried to turn back
but was apprehended. On an enquiry, she disclosed her name as Ramesh
Kumari alias Baboo. On her search, a recovery of 05 grams of heroin came
to be effected from her person.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
recovery from the petitioner is of a small quantity of heroin. Since the
petitioner was in custody since 12.10.2022, she deserves the concession of
bail as the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to
the case of the petitioner. He relies upon a judgment passed by the High
1 of 3
CRM-M-52567-2022 ::2::
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the case of 'Reena Kumari versus
State of H.P. (Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No.2090 of 2022 dated
27.09.2022)'.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits
that the petitioner is a habitual offender with as many as 05 other FIRs under
the NDPS Act as is set-out in the petition as also in the impugned order. He
contends that in view of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as also
the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is not entitled to the
grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the present case, the petitioner is apparently a habitual
offender with as many as 05 other FIRs registered against her. The conduct
of the petitioner certainly does not entitle her to the grant of bail. The
conditions as imposed under Section 37 NDPS Act are in addition to those
imposed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Merely, because the recovery is of non-
commercial quantity of contraband does not ipso facto entitle the accused to
the grant of bail as the conduct of the petitioner is required to be seen even
for the purposes of granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It may also be
pointed out that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Reena Kumari (supra) is not applicable to the present case as
the Court granted bail to the petitioner therein on account of the fact that the
recovery was from the house of the petitioner therein and the contraband
could possibly have been of her husband who was already in custody in
another case under the NDPS Act. Secondly, the challan had already been
submitted in the said case and the petitioner was in custody for 10 months.
7. In the present case, the petitioner herself is an accused in 05
other cases under the NDPS Act. Her prior conduct does not entitle her to
2 of 3
CRM-M-52567-2022 ::3::
the grant of regular bail. Even otherwise, the recovery in the present case is
from her person. Further, she has been in custody only since the last about
one and a half month.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner is not
entitled to the grant of bail. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
November 23, 2022
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
