Jeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 1588 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2025

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013894



CRM-M-47830-2024      #1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                          CRM-M-47830-2024

                                                 Date of Decision:-30.01.2025

Jeet Kaur.
                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                    Versus
State of Punjab.
                                                                 ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-    Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

             Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The Prayer in this petition under section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for

the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.39 dated 30.06.2023 under Section

15 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 added later on) registered at

Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga.

2. In brief, as per the version of the prosecution, FIR in this case

was registered on the basis of a secret information and thereby, on 30.6.2023

at about 1:50 AM in the area of Kokri Kalan PS Ajitwal, District Moga,

accused namely Sarabjit Singh @ Sarba son of Gurdev Singh, Sandeep

Singh @ Sonu son of Amardeep Singh and Balbir Singh @ Sonu son of

Bikkar Singh, all residents of Malsian Bajan and also of residents of Kokri

Kalan, Ajitwal were apprehended while being in possession of 5 plastic bags

of black colour containing poppy husk weighing 20kg each in their four

wheeler make Bolero bearing registration no.PB-13AF-4564. Then, upon

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013894

CRM-M-47830-2024 #2

reaching their residential premises, under the shed, there were three vehicles

parked with two women standing nearby, who tried to flee on seeing the

police party, but they were apprehended and they disclosed their names as

Jeet Kaur @ Jeeto (petitioner) wife of Sarabjit Singh @ Sarbha and Amro

Bhai (granted bail vide order dated 22.01.2025 in CRM-M-56452-2024)

wife of Sarabjit Singh @ Sarbha. From the first four wheeler make Innova

bearing no.PB-29G-8489, more five plastic bags of black colour containing

poppy husk weighing 20 kg each were recovered. Then from second four

wheeler make Tata Indigo bearing registration No.PB-29N-1570, three

plastic bags of black colour containing poppy husk weighing 20kg each were

recovered. Then, from the third four wheeler make I20 bearing registration

no.DL-07CJ-5151, two plastic bags of black colour containing poppy husk

weighing 20 kg each were recovered. Then from the basement of the

premises, 10 more plastic bags of black colour containing poppy husk

weighing 20 kg each were recovered. In this way, 25 plastic bags of black

colour containing poppy husk weighing 5 Qtl in total was recovered from

the possession of the accused persons namely Sarabjit Singh @ Sarba,

Sandeep Singh @ Sonu, Balvir Singh @ Sonu, Jeet Kaur @ Jeeto and Amro

Bai were recovered. During investigation, accused Sarabjit Singh @ Sarba

suffered a disclosure statement that these 25 plastic bags of black colour

containing poppy husk weighing 5 Qtls in total were delivered at his

residential premises by Paramjit Singh @ Pamma @ Gora son of Gurdev

Singh @ Billu resident of village Daulewala and they used to sell poppy

husk to Jhinda resident of Kokri Buttar, Darshan Singh son of Unknown of

village Bhinder Kalan, Teja Singh (since granted bail vide order dated

02.08.2024 in CRM-M-49877-2023) son of unknown, auto owner, residing

on the road leading from Mallian to Diakalan and Karmi wife of unknown

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013894

CRM-M-47830-2024 #3

resident of Indergarh and these four persons were their permanent

customers. Thus, upon disclosure statement suffered by accused Sarabjit

Singh @ Sarba, these four persons, named above, were also nominated

under section 29 of NDPS Act vide GD no.16 dated 4.7.2023.

3. 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 she was a first time offender, in custody since

30.06.2023 and none of the 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined so

far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon

and therefore, she 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.

4. 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 was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes

that the petitioner is a first time offender, in custody since 30.06.2023 and

none of the 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

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

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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013894

CRM-M-47830-2024 #4

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.

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

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

7. 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013894

CRM-M-47830-2024 #5

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; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the 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)

8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) and

Hasanujjaman & others (supra)', the accused therein had been granted the

concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone

approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013894

CRM-M-47830-2024 #6

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

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

30.06.2023 and none of the 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined so

far. She is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against

him. 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, more so when

her co-accused Amro Bai has been granted the concession of bail.

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

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Jeet Kaur wife of Sh. Sarabjit Singh 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.

11. 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.

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

prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                      JUDGE
January 30, 2025
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                       6 of 6