Manjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3917 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           237                                            CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 29.04.2026

           Manjeet Kaur

                                                                              ......Petitioner
                                                            Versus

           State of Punjab
                                                                              ...... Respondents

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains

to a case arising out of FIR No.16 dated 04.02.2026, for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 22 [Sections 27 and 29 added later on] of

Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Nurpur

Bedi, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of ASI Malkit Singh, who had

reported that on 04.02.2026, when he was leading a team of police officials,

deputed for patrolling duty, one person was apprehended on the basis of

suspicious conduct. As per above named police official when search of the

body of abovesaid person was conducted, 5 grams of intoxicating power was

recovered from his possession.

CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 2

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above

mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing

of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of petitioner were completed

and further investigation taken up. The prosecution has further alleged that

during the course of investigation, when the abovementioned accused was

interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he revealed the name

of 'Jaspal' as supplier of contraband. According to prosecution when the

above named 'Jaspal' was arrested on interrogation, he, too, suffered a

disclosure statement, wherein he nominated the present petitioner as supplier

of the contraband.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.

Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-

State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The

learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same

be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the

learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

6. Heard.

7. To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Vijay Singh Vs. The

State of Haryana' 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the

abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of

recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the

CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 3

benefit of bail to the accused.

8. Similarly, in the case of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence

Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence' 2018(3) SCC Online SC 757, are

relevant, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that

the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible against another accused,

as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other

accused.

9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4) RCR

(Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an

accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against

the co-accused.

10. In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it

has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that confessional

statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be

admitted in evidence, as a confession.

11. The record has been perused carefully.

12. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in

the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than two months and fourteen days;

ii) that in the present case the FSL Report is yet to be received, and therefore, it is not possible to ascertain which type of intoxicating power was found in possession of accused Pardeep;

iii) that otherwise also nothing has been recovered from the

CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 4

possession of petitioner, and therefore, rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are not attracted, in the present case, qua the role attributed to the petitioner;

iv) that the only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when he was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

v) that the petitioner being a female deserves a lenient view;

vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vii) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future;

viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

13. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 5

"a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus

has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is

another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect

of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is

that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a

prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have

been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being

incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal

jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of

bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the

exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of

decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,

occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an

accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of

a case".

14. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'

(2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it

has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is

abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the

Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to

CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 6

think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications

will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up

consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of

a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal

with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

15. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be

said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has

been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and

extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our

justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and

the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in

order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

16. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as

mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab

and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

17. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

CRM-M No.22733 of 2026 (O&M) 7

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,

and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered

to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be

subject to following conditions:-

i) 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 from disclosing such

facts to the Court or to any other authority;

ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish

the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change

in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;

and

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission

of trial Court.

19. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove

is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have

no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 29.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No