Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirna vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2023
CRM-M-40449-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097389
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40449-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.07.2023
Kirna ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Akashdeep Miglani, Advocate and
Mr. Adarshdeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.
****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner seeks bail in case bearing FIR No.96 dated 28.06.2022, registered
under Section 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station, Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Per allegations in the FIR, the police party, in the area of Police Station
Kabarwala, signaled two persons riding on a motorcycle to stop. On seeing the police
party, petitioner and co-accused turned around to flee, but in the process fell off their
motorcycle. A polythene bag containing 250 tablets of Clobedol-100 SR also fell on the
road and same was confiscated from the spot. Both riders were immediately taken in
custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery effected from the
plastic bag has been planted on the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is in
custody since 28.06.2022. Challan has already been presented before the competent
Court. Charges have been framed. There are 15 prosecution witnesses but none of the
witnesses has been examined till date. Petitioner is not required for custodial
interrogation. He submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Vicky has already
VANDANA been accorded concession of bail by this Court. Though petitioner's case stands on much
2023.07.31 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-40449-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097389
better footing, and yet she continues to be in jail, he contends. He also argues that on the
ground of parity alone, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of
trial.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail petition. She
submits that petitioner has committed a serious offence. She however, admits that
quantity of contraband recovered falls under the non-commercial quantity. She further
points out that petitioner is though involved in another case under NDPS Act, but she is
on bail in that case. In case petitioner is granted concession of bail, there are chances of
her fleeing.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have
gone through the case file.
6. Challan is stated to have been presented, charges have been framed.
Investigation is thus complete qua petitioner, she is thus not required for custodial
interrogation. Trial has commenced and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence but
none of the prosecution witnesses out of 15 witnesses has been examined so far.
Commencement/conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite sometime. Allegations
against petitioner are a matter of trial at this stage.
7. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence
is determined. Whereas petitioner has already been languishing in jail for almost 01 year
and 1 month in preventive custody, she being behind bars since 28.06.2022. She is being
kept in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if she is let out, she
may either tamper with evidence and/ or influence witnesses. There is no documentary
evidence and it is more in the nature of FSL report qua contraband, already filed in the
Court below to which accused has no access. There is no probability of tampering with
evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency. As regards
witnesses, they are all official and therefore, they are unlikely to be influenced, even if
there is any such apprehension by the prosecution.
8. Petitioner is stated to be 38-year old, mother of two minor children, who
are derived of natural care and upbringing in her absence. Being a mother of two minors,
VANDANA
2023.07.31 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-40449-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097389
it is unlikely that she is flight risk or will flee from the trial proceedings. Offence
allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and in that sense her release on
bail is not a threat to the society at large by committing any violent crime.
9. Co-accused/Vicky, husband of petitioner, has been granted concession of bail by
this court vide order dated 24.07.2023. Role attributed to the petitioner appears to be at
par with that of her co-accused Vicky. In the premise, I see no ground as to why
petitioner should not be meted out with similar treatment.
10. Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of
the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be
served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.
11. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing
bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, where her case is
being tried and in case he/she is not available, before learned Duty Judge, as the case may
be.
12. In case, petitioner is found to be involved or gets involved in any offence
while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of her bail in the
instant case.
13. It is made clear that any observations and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case as the same are for the limited purpose of
hearing the instant bail petition alone and learned Trial Court shall proceed without being
influenced with this order.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( ARUN MONGA )
JUDGE
31.07.2023
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA
2023.07.31 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
