Tuesday, 02, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Parveen And Anr vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 7115 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7115 P&H
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parveen And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                                                2024:PHHC:045459
                       CRM-M-16276-2024                                                       -1-


                      113        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                          CRM-M-16276-2024
                                                                   Date of Decision : April 04, 2024


                      Parveen and another                                             .....Petitioners
                                                            Vs.
                      State of Punjab                                                  ...Respondent

                      CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

                      Present:     Ms. Simsi Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners.
                                   Ms. Ramta K. Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

                      JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is

for the grant of interim bail to the petitioners from 05.04.2024 to 12.04.2024

for performing the marriage of Sania daughter of petitioner No.1 and niece

of Sandeep Kumari petitioner No.2, in FIR No.91 dated 26.08.2022

registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur under Sections

21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that she does not press the prayer for grant of interim bail to

Sandeep Kumari-petitioner No.2 and wishes to withdraw the same qua her.

Dismissed as withdrawn qua Sandeep Kumari-petitioner No.2.

3. However, on the oral request of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the present petition is taken up under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of regular bail qua Parveen-petitioner No.1 only.

2024:PHHC:045459

4. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners Parveen and

Sandeep Kumari (non petitioner) came to be apprehended with 520 grams of

heroin.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory

provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied

with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the

time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody

since 26.08.2022 and only 02 out of 11 prosecution witnesses had been

examined so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded

anytime soon. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail

in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish

Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)

Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in

CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman &

others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 3221/2023

arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in

CRM (NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that

commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.

Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. She, however, concedes that

the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 26.08.2022 and only

02 out of 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

2024:PHHC:045459

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided

on 01.08.2022 held as under:-

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on

09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

2024:PHHC:045459

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

9. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; charge-sheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the

2024:PHHC:045459

direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody

since 26.08.2022 and only 02 out of 11 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far. She is also a first-time offender with no other case

2024:PHHC:045459

registered against her. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS

Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article

21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial

and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail.

11. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and petitioner No.1-Parveen wife of Kulwinder Ram @

Frishta is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds

and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

12. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned

on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform

in writing each time that she is not involved in any other crime other than the

present case.

13. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on her behalf) shall

prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and deposit the same with the

Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of

the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

14. The petition stands disposed of.




                                                                       ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                      April 04, 2024                                            JUDGE
                      satish




                                         Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO

                                         Whether reportable            : YES / NO






 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter