[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rano vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
-1-
CRM-M-19515-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215 CRM-M-19515-2026
Decided on : 27.04.2026
RANO
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner,
during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising
out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police Sta- District
No. tion
Petitioner(s)
Rano 35 28.03.2024 21 & 22 of the Nakodar Jalandhar
NDPS Act (Sec- Sadar (Rural)
tion 29 NDPS Ac-
tand 342, 411,
482, 120-B IPC
added subse-
quently)
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that present FIR
JYOTI has been registered on the basis of secret information alleging that petitioner
CRM-M-19515-2026
has been involved in the business of selling drugs for a long time and 10
cases are already registered against her. He argues that the FIR was lodged
even prior to the conduct of raid at the premises of the petitioner, which it-
self casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version.
During the course of investigation, a raid was allegedly con-
ducted at the dairy situated at the residence of the petitioner, from where 310
intoxicant tablets containing Etizolam, weighing 30.69 grams, were recov-
ered. However, the said recovery was effected from the possession of co-ac-
cused Karamjit Singh @ Bobby and not from the petitioner. Petitioner is im-
plicated in the present case as accused solely on the basis of disclosure state-
ment made by the said co-accused, who stated that he was running a de-ad-
diction centre in the premises allegedly let out to him by the petitioner and
her daughter. Accordingly, on the basis of such disclosure, offence under
Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been added, which is legally untenable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that, the pros-
ecution story is inherently improbable as once the police had prior secret in-
formation and conducted a raid with a team of eight armed officials, there
was no possibility for the petitioner to escape from the spot, as alleged.
Therefore, it creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged
raid itself.
It is submitted that, although several cases have been registered
against petitioner, she has been acquitted in the majority of them and only
in one case she has been convicted, wherein she has already undergone the
sentence, while in other cases, either she has been acquitted or awarded mi-
nor sentences.
CRM-M-19515-2026
It is also contended that, petitioner is in custody since Septem-
ber 2024, and the trial is proceeding at a very slow pace. Out of a total of 61
prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far, and
thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of
time. Therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no
useful purpose. He further submits that, the main accused, namely Karamjit
Singh @ Bobby, from whose possession the alleged recovery has been ef-
fected, has already been granted bail vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in
CRM-M-47365-2025 (Annexure P-2). Another co-accused, namely Baljin-
der Kaur @ Baby, has also been granted bail vide order dated 18.08.2025
passed in CRM-M-62339-2024 (Annexure P-3). Therefore, on the principle
of parity, petitioner is also entitled to the concession of regular bail. Thus,
prays for grant of bail.
4. On advance notice and in response to the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned state counsel contends that pe-
titioner does not deserve the concession of bail in view of her criminal an-
tecedents as detailed here below:-
Sr.No. FIR Recovery Status
28.10.1993 u/s 15 NDPS 15.03.1996
Act PS Sadar Nakodar
District Jalandhar
25.04.2000 u/s 15 NDPS 10.01.2002
Act PS Sadar Nakodar
District Jalandhar
02.04.2005 u/s 15 NDPS husk 04.10.2006
Act PS Nurmehal Dis-
trict Jalandhar
29.03.2013 u/s 15,21,29 6 grams Heroin 15.03.2016
JYOTI NDPS Act PS Sadar
CRM-M-19515-2026
Nakodar District Jaland-
har
26.05.2014 u/s 15,18,22 and 50 grams in- 01.12.2019
NDPS Act PS Sadar toxicant substance
Nakodar District Jaland-
har
18.03.2015 u/s 21 NDPS 16.12.2017
Act PS Goraya District
Jalandhar
20.08.2014 u/s 21,25,29 07.12.2017
NDPS Act PS Sadar
SBS Nagar
08.09.2016 u/s 16.12.2019
323,324,326,506,148,14
9 IPC PS Kartarpur Dis-
trict Jalandhar
26.02.2015 u/s 21, 25, 08.12.2017
29 NDPS Act, PS Sadar
Banga, District SBS Na-
gar
18.02.2008 u/s 15 NDPS 03.12.2009; under-
Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, gone 1½ months
District Jalandhar
11 FIR No. 259 dated 10 Kg Poppy Husk Convicted on
02.09.2008 u/s 15 NDPS 14.01.2010; under-
Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, gone 3½ months
District Jalandhar
27.08.2009 u/s 15 NDPS Husk years on
Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, 19.08.2010; sen-
District Jalandhar tence suspended by
High Court
02.07.2013 u/s 420, 193, 07.03.2019; Fine
120-B IPC, PS Sadar Rs. 4000
Nakodar, District Jaland-
har
14 FIR No. 73 dated 500 grams Heroin Convicted on
24.03.2007 u/s 15 NDPS 20.11.2009; under-
Act, PS Sadar Nakodar, gone 3 months
District Jalandhar
15.11.2022 u/s 8, 21
NDPS Act, PS NCB
Chandigarh
CRM-M-19515-2026
28.03.2024 u/s 21, 22 (named in disclo-
NDPS Act, PS Sadar sure)
Nakodar, District Jaland-
har
He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and has been
involved in a large number of cases, particularly under the provisions of the
NDPS Act. It is further argued that although petitioner claims acquittal in
several cases, the sheer number of cases registered against her clearly estab-
lishes her continuous involvement in the illegal activities. It is submitted that
the acquittals in earlier cases do not wipe out her antecedents, especially
when multiple prosecutions under the NDPS Act have been initiated against
her over a long period of time. Therefore, there is every likelihood that if pe-
titioner is released on bail, she may again indulge in similar offences. Thus,
prays for dismissal of concession of bail.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds sub-
stance in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by
observing that the alleged recovery in the present case has not been effected
from the conscious possession of the petitioner, but rather from the co-ac-
cused. The implication of the petitioner is primarily based upon the disclo-
sure statement of the co-accused, which by itself carries limited evidentiary
value at this stage.
It is further noticed that petitioner is in custody since September
2024 and has undergone incarceration for a considerable period. The trial is
progressing at a slow pace, as only 2 prosecution witnesses have been exam-
CRM-M-19515-2026
ined of total 61 prosecution witnesses so far and the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take substantial time.
6. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that the main
co-accused Karamjit Singh @Bobby, from whose possession the contraband
was allegedly recovered, has already been granted the concession of bail
(Supra). Another co-accused Baljinder Kaur @Baby has also been enlarged
on bail. Therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on a similar footing, and
the principle of parity is attracted.
With regard to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, al-
though multiple cases have been registered against her, it is evident that she
has been acquitted in the majority of such cases. The remaining cases either
resulted in minor sentences or are pending trial. Thus, at this stage, the an-
tecedents alone cannot be a ground to deny bail, particularly in view of the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
7. In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations
leveled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it
appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial
Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in
CRM-M-19515-2026
8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly
or indirectly.
9. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore,
trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on
the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in ac-
cordance with law.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
27.04.2026
Jyoti-V
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO.
