[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saniya vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2025
CRM-M No.57001 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
*****
CRM-M No.57001 of 2025
Date of decision : 19.12.2025
Date of uploading : 19.12.2025
Saniya .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.190 dated 6.8.2025 under
Sections 21, 22, 29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District
Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'To SHO, PS: Mandi Gobindgarh, Jai Hind. Today I SI including SI
Mohammad Sadiq No. 3522/PBI, ASI Karamjit Singh No. 175/Fgs, ASI
Tilak Raj No. 261/Fgs. ASI Baljinder Singh No. 496/Fgs, SI Harmanjeet
Singh No. 78/RRT, SI Loveleen Kaur No. 77/RRT along with ASI
Kawanaljeet Singh, HC Mantu Singh 579/PBI, S/CT Satnam Singh No.
697/Fgs. PHG Gurmukh Singh No. 215, PHG Lakhvir Singh No. 151, with
1 of 6
laptop and printer in official vehicle Bolero No. PB-23-T-3154 driven by
PHG Karnail Singh No. 273, was present at Gugga Mardi Deha Colony,
Nasrali in connection with the CASO search operation duty on the
instructions of senior officers, and checking was being done under the
CASO search operation of Deha Colony, Nasrall. During the checking
search, it would be around 6:50 PM. A man was walking on foot in the
street of the Veterinary Hospital at Nasrall, but on seeing the police party
checking from ahead, he got scared and took out a polythene envelope
from the left pocket of his shirt and threw it outside near the wall of the
Veterinary Hospital, Nasrall to the right and started running back. Then I
SI. with the help of co-police officials, caught him and asked for his name
and address On being asked, he revealed his name as Harish Kumar, son
of Buta Ram, resident of house number 347, street number 10, Mata Rani
Mohalla, Nasrall, Police Station Gobindgarh. District Fatehgarh Sahib.
Then the St picked up the transparent polybag envelope that fell down and
checked it, in which white-colored narcotic substance and 03 currency
notes of 500×500 and 03 currency notes of 100×100 (total Rs. 1800) were
recovered. That on asking, above-mentioned Harish Kumar disclosed that
I have earned this money by selling heroin. That after smell, feel, and
checking with the testing kit, the same is found as heroin. Then the same
was weighed with a computer scale and weight comes to 80 grams of
heroin. That on the spot an attempt was made to involve a private person
in investigation but no one was ready, they kept avoiding on explaining
one and another compulsion. Then I SI, put the recovered 80 grams of
heroin in the same transparent wax envelope and then put it in a cloth bag
and prepared a bulk parcel, and the same bulk parcel was sealed by the SI
with his seal letter DP, and the bulk parcel of drug money was prepared
by putting currency notes of total Rs. 1800 in a white envelope, and the
bulk parcel of drug money was sealed by | SI. with my seal DP. The
sample of the seal was prepared. After the use of the seal, the same was
handed over to ASI Karamjit Singh No. 175/Fgs. Videography was done
on the spot through the E-Sakshya app The seized heroin was 80 grams
with the seal letter DP along with the sample seal, and the seized drug
money was seized by the police through al separate seizure memo, the
same as signed by ASI Karamjit Singh No. 175/Fgs and ASI Baljinder
Singh No. 496/Fgs as witnesses. That Harish Kumar, by keeping 80 grams
in his possession, heroin, was found to have committed the crime under
2 of 6
21/61/85 NDPS Act. Then I SI, prepared and sent ruqa through S/CT
Satnam Singh No. 697/Fgs to the police station to register FIR against the
said crime against the accused Harish Kumar. That after registration of
FIR, number of same be informed. That being chance recovery,
compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act is not possible. Then separate report
of Section 57 NDPS Act is prepared and sent to senior police officials.
That at present, I am busy investigating with my fellow officials. Sd.-
Dharampal, SI, Police Station Gobindgarh. Date: 06.08.2025, Area:
Gugga Mardi Deha Colony, Nasrali, Police Station Gobindgarh. Time:
08:30 PM.'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 30.8.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has further argued that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have
not been scrupulously complied with, thus, prosecution case suffers from
inherent defects. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case,
the total contraband recovered qua the FIR in question is 95 grams of
heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the police has sought to invoke the Section 37 of NDPS
Act by alleging that there is recovery of ₹1500/- as drug money but sole
basis thereof is the confessional statement of the petitioner. Thus, regular
bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is accused of offence
pertaining to commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and thus, his bail
3 of 6
petition is barred in view of the Section 37 of the Act. Learned State
counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.12.2025 in
Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 30.8.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 29.10.2025.
Total 11 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been
examined till date. The contraband recovered qua the FIR in question is
totaling to 95 grams of heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. The
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act sought to be invoked on the ground
that ₹1500/- drug money was recovered from the petitioner but the sole
basis thereof is the confessional statement of the petitioner herself. The
rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall
essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court
does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at
this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been
brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding
from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 17.12.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 3 months and 16 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner
is stated to be involved in 3 more cases/FIRs under the NDPS Act.
Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for
4 of 6
while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this
factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of
regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made
out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon
the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana
Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High
Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 &
judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh
Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of
Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the
following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence,
oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with
5 of 6
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police
Station and shall not change her cell-phone number
without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day
of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned
trial Court, to the effect that she has not been
involved in commission of any offence after being
released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be
involved in any offence after her being enlarged on
bail in the present FIR, on the basis of her affidavit or
otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith,
for cancellation of her bail which plea, but of course,
shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
19.12.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
