[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-19679-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
CRM-M-19679-2026
Decided on : 30.04.2026
GEETA
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. N.S. Lucky, 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 District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Geeta, aged 45 01.03.2025 22, 61, 85 Maqsuda Jalandhar
about 44 years of NDPS
Act
2. As per the case of prosecution, petitioner-Geeta, was a
pillion rider on an Activa scooter being driven by her co-accused,
Damandeep Singh @ Balli. Upon noticing the police party, the co-
accused allegedly became perplexed, took out a polythene bag from his
pocket, and threw it away with his left hand. After being apprehended,
both the individuals disclosed their identity. Subsequently, the said
polythene bag, as thrown by co-accused Damandeep Singh @ Balli,
containing 152 loose pink-colored intoxicant tablets containing Etizolam,
weighing 16.112 grams, was recovered.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever
with the alleged narcotic contraband, as she was merely a pillion rider on
the scooter. It is further contended that, as per the prosecution's own case,
polythene bag was in the exclusive possession of the co-accused, who
was driving the scooter, and there was no material to suggest that
petitioner had any knowledge of its contents. In the absence of any
evidence establishing conscious possession or knowledge on the part of
the petitioner, no culpability can be attributed to her. Thus, it is prayed
that petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail in the present
case.
4. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate
dated 29.04.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag
the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the
counsel for the petitioner.
As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner
has already undergone 04 months and 28 days period inside jail and there
is no other case registered against him.
5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
petitioner was acting in connivance with the main accused-Damandeep
Singh @ Balli. It is argued that, in all probability, petitioner had
knowledge of the contraband, i.e., the Etizolam tablets, allegedly kept in
the pocket of her co-accused.
6. However, on being asked by this Court, learned State
counsel fairly concedes that petitioner, aged about 44 years, has not been
involved in any other criminal activity in the past, and has clean
antecedents.
7. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned
counsel for the parties and has perused the record available on file.
8. Admittedly, petitioner is inside jail since 01.03.2025. Apart
from the fact that, at the time of the alleged recovery, petitioner was a
pillion rider on the scooter being driven by co-accused Damandeep Singh
@ Balli, there is no other material brought on record by the prosecution
sufficient to prima facie indicate her direct involvement in the alleged
offence.
9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, nature of
allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here
above, particularly her clean antecedents and absence of material
suggesting conscious possession or knowledge, this Court deems it
appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the
present case.
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 any other case.
10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
11. 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 accordance with law.
12. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly
found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to
be cancelled.
13. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
30.04.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
