[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhmi Devi Alias Lachmi Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.16496 of 2026
Lachhmi Devi @ Lachmi Kaur ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 27.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
authenticity of this order /judgment
"BNSS") seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
315 27.06.2024 City Barnala, 22 and 29 of Narcotic
District Barnala Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for
short 'NDPS Act')
2. As per the allegations, on 27.06.2024, on receipt of a secret
information to the effect that the accused Vakil Singh, Gurpiar Singh,
Manish Kumar and Rohit Kumar were indulged in procurement of
intoxicating tablets and then selling the same in the vicinity and on that very
day also, they were trying to sell such tablets in the area of Anaj Mandi,
Barnala, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and
apprehended the aforementioned accused and 700 loose intoxicating tablets
were recovered from their conscious possession, which were taken into
custody by the police. The above named accused were formally arrested. On
interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements to the effect that they used
to bring intoxicating tablets from the accused Vivek Kumar, Jaspal Dass,
Jeevan Bisnet, Manpreet Kaur, Rani Kaur and the present petitioner and
were working in connivance with each other.
3. As per the further allegations, during the course of
investigation, statements of Manohar Lal @ Mohna and Harpreet Kumar @
Lambu were also recorded. Manohar Lal @ Mohna stated that on
20.06.2024, he had seen the accused Vakil, Gurpiar, Manik and Rehit while
taking some articles from the present petitioner and co-accused Manpreet
authenticity of this order /judgment
Kaur and Rani Kaur and that on 21.06.2024, the above named Vakil etc. had
made an extra judicial confession before him that they had taken intoxicating
tablets from the petitioner, Rani Kaur and Manpreet Kaur and had sold the
same to other accused who were apprehended. Harpreet Kumar @ Lambu
separately recorded his statement that the accused Jaspal Dass, Vivek
Kumar, and Jiwan Bisnet, had disclosed to him that they had purchased
intoxicating tablets from the petitioner and other accused and had sold them
further to the accused who had been apprehended. On the basis of disclosure
of co-accused and the witnesses, the petitioner was nominated as an accused
and was arrested on 05.02.2026. Investigation qua the petitioner now stands
concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has
been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of
the co-accused and statements of some persons who are not at all known to
her. She is in custody since 05.02.2026. No recovery has been effected from
her. She is not required for further investigation. The trial will take
considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by
detaining her in custody any more. She is on bail in other cases registered
against her. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, she does not
authenticity of this order /judgment
deserve to be extended benefit of bail.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner along with the co-accused Rani Kaur and
Manpreet Kaur is alleged to have supplied intoxicating tablets to the accused
Jaspal Dass, Jiwan Bisent and Vivek Kumar who are further alleged to have
supplied the same to the accused Vakil Singh, Gurpiar Singh, Manish
Kumar and Rohit Kumar from whom the contraband had been recovered.
She had been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements. However, the
said disclosure statements have not been produced on record by the
respondent-State despite the fact that vide order dated 02.04.2026, specific
direction had been given to the respondent to place the same on record.
Statements of Manohar Lal and Harpreet Singh recorded under Section 180
of BNSS (Section 161 of Cr.P.C.) have been annexed with the status report
The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed
by the co-accused, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband has been effected. As per their disclosure statements, they had
sourced the contraband from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that
the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are
inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While
the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested
during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no
authenticity of this order /judgment
recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody
since 05.02.2026. Challan has been presented. The trial will take time. The
object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it
can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been
considered as a punishment. Even otherwise, pre trial incarceration should
not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. As per the discussion made
above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the
petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any
manner whatsoever.
(ii) she shall not leave the country under any circumstance
without permission of the learned trial Court.
(iii) she shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when
directed.
(iv) she shall provide her permanent address as well as present
address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing
of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the
authenticity of this order /judgment
trial Court.
(v) She shall also give details of her mobile phone number(s) to
the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in
case, any change in her mobile phone number takes place, then
she shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in
advance and shall keep her mobile phone switch on all times.
8. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against
the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
(MANISHA BATRA)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
