Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Kaur @Kirna vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 August, 2024
CRM-M-30222-2024 and CRM-M-31625-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.223 (2 cases)
Case No. : CRM-M-30222-2024
Date of Decision : August 01, 2024
Jaspreet Kaur @ Kirna .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
Case No. : CRM-M-31625-2024
Date of Decision : August 01, 2024
Satgur Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Avneet, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Vide this common judgment, two afore-stated petitions i.e. CRM-
M-30222-2024 and CRM-M-31625-2024 shall be decided as facts and
circumstances involved in both these petitions are the same and both
petitions relate to the same FIR. However, for the sake of convenience, facts
are being taken from CRM-M-30222-2024.
2. Prayer in the present petition(s) is for grant of regular bail to the
MONIKA petitioner(s) in FIR No.30 dated 18.04.2024, under Sections 22, 29 and
61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as - NDPS Act) , registered at Police Station Rureke
Kalan, District Barnala.
3. As per prosecution version, on 18.04.2024, on receipt of secret
information, FIR was got registered against petitioners Jaspreet Kaur @
Kirna and her husband Satgur Singh. They were apprehended and 110 loose
intoxicant tablets were recovered from the black colour polythene envelope,
kept on the seat of motorcycle, on which they were travelling. As per the
report of Chemical Examiner, the content of each tablet was found to be
Tramadol Hydrochloride.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner(s) has contended that quantity of
contraband recovered in the present case is not a commercial quantity. The
petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents as they were never
involved in any other case and no FIR has been registered against them
except the present one. The petitioner(s) were arrested on 18.04.2024 and
they are behind bars since the. The case is at its initial stage and would take
a long time to conclude. Therefore, the petitioner(s) be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the ground that the
petitioner(s) have been found to be involved in drug trafficking, which is a
serious offence. Therefore, they are not entitled to bail.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) and learned State counsel.
7. On asking, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that the
petitioner(s) are not involved in any other case. They are in custody since
18.04.2024. The recovery of tablets, effected from the petitioner(s), is not
commercial quantity.
8. Keeping in view that the petitioner(s) are first offenders; they are
husband and wife; the recovery of contraband involved in the present case is
of non-commercial quantity; the completion of trial would take a long time
and no useful purpose would be served by further detention of the
petitioner(s), this Court is of the view that the petitioner(s) are entitled for
concession of regular bail.
9. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the
present petition(s) are allowed and the petitioner(s) are directed to be
released on regular bail, on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate
concerned. The petitioner(s) shall also abide by the following conditions :-
1. The petitioners shall give their mobile
numbers to the Trial Court and get the same
registered, on which SMS shall be received from
the CIS and shall not change their mobile numbers
during pendency of the case.
3. The petitioners shall not change their
residence without prior intimation to the
concerned Police Station and the Trial Court.
4. The petitioners shall appear before the Trial
Court on each and every date of hearing.
10. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to
be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations
recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail
petition(s).
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with the
present petition.
12. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of other
connected matter.
August 01, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
