[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam vs State Of Punjab on 16 December, 2025
CRM-M-59941-2025 (O&M) -1-
218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59941-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.12.2025
NEELAM
......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : None.
****
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. Today lawyers are abstaining from work.
2. The prayer in this petition under Section 482 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.233, dated 31.08.2025, registered under Section 21
of NDPS Act, (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station
City South, District Moga (Annexure P-1).
3. On 29.10.2025, the following order was passed:-
" Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No.233 dated 31.08.2025 registered at Police Station
City South, District Moga, under Section 21 of NDPS Act
(Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on).
Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab,
has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the State.
Both the parties have been heard and material collected by
the police during investigation has been perused.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
31.08.2025, when police party was on patrolling duty in the
area of police station City South Moga, one Vijay @ Gacha
was apprehended by the police and 15 grams of Heroin was
recovered from him. On interrogation, co-accused Vijay @
Gacha disclosed the name of the petitioner-Neelam as being
involved in dealing with the intoxicants. Apprehending
1 of 3
CRM-M-59941-2025 (O&M) -2-
arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has
been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated
30.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The disclosure statement of co-accused Vijay @ Gacha,
whereby she has been nominated as an accused is
inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is
no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged
offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the
basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned
counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the
investigation and she will abide by the conditions that may
be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be
extended in her favour. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder
Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as "Sahil
Joshi Vs. State of Punjab" and order dated 20.08.2025
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as 'Jugraj
Singh Vs. State of Punjab'. Learned counsel also cited the
order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CRM-M-18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide
which bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was
rejected.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed
the prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has
emerged during investigation and disclosure statement of co-
accused Vijay @ Gacha has pointed towards her role in the
present offence indicating her involvement in the illicit drug
network and as such, her custodial interrogation is essential
to trace the source from where the contraband was arranged
and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve
anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, the name of the petitioner has cropped up
in the disclosure statement of co-accused Vijay @ Gacha,
from whom the alleged contraband was recovered. At this
stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except
disclosure statement of co-accused Vijay @ Gacha. In
Jugraj Singh's case (supra), 5kg heroin was recovered
along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main
accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered his release on
anticipatory bail observing that mere disclosure statement is
not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As
such, it is a fit case wherein benefit of anticipatory bail
should be extended.
Adjourned to 16.12.2025 for filing status report.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation and in the event of her arrest, she shall be
admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to
2 of 3
CRM-M-59941-2025 (O&M) -3-
the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2)
of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:-
i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;
ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the
prior permission of the Court;
iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-
section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted
under that section."
4. Today, ASI Sardara Singh, P.S. City, South Moga has
informed this Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation, in
compliance of the order dated 29.10.2025 and is no longer required for
further investigation.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 29.10.2025, whereby
the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.
However, she shall continue to join investigation, if and so required by the
Investigating Officer.
6. Disposed of.
7. Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
16.12.2025
Vishal Vardhan
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
