[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-72287-2025 1
118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-72287-2025
Date of decision :20.03.2026
Rajwinder Kaur ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, D.A.G., Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail in case
FIR No.133 dated 16.10.2024 under Section 21(b) & 29 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station
Sultanwind, District Amritsar.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while
on patrolling on 16.10.2024 saw three persons coming on a motorcycle
and, out of them, one was woman. On seeing the police, they got
perplexed and the person sitting behind the rider of the motorcycle handed
over one envelope to the woman sitting behind him, who tried to throw it
away. However, they were apprehended. On asking, the rider of the
motorcycle disclosed his name as Arjinder Singh @ Jinder, the person
sitting behind the rider of the motorcycle, disclosed his name as Sukhbir
Singh @ Bittu and the woman sitting behind him, disclosed her name as
Sarabjit Kaur. They were suspected to be carrying some contraband and
thus, search was conducted. On conducting the search, 200 grams of
heroin was recovered. They failed to produce any license regarding
1 of 5
possession of the same and hence, the FIR was registered and all were
arrested on spot. The investigation commenced. During investigation,
complicity of the petitioner surfaced in the present case and thus, she was
arrested on 16.10.2024. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. On
conclusion of investigation, challan was presented and on framing of
charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Learned
Judge, Special Court, Amritsar praying for grant of bail, however, finding
no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned
Judge, Special Court, Amritsar vide order dated 10.11.2025. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present
petition for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that
as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged recovery of 200 grams of
heroin, was effected from co-accused, namely, Arjinder Singh @ Jinder,
Sarbjit Kaur and Sukhbir Singh @ Bittu. He submits that the petitioner was
arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused,
namely, Sarbjit Kaur which is not even an admissible evidence. He submits
that hereinafter, recovery of 800 grams of heroin, has been planted upon the
petitioner. To buttress his arguments, he submits that the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents as she has never been involved in any other case. He
submits co-accused, namely, Arjinder Singh @ Jinder, Sarbjit Kaur and
Sukhbir Singh @ Bittu, have already been granted bail by this Court. He
submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of her arrest,
however, there is no material progress in the trial and thus, her right of
speedy trial has been defeated. He thus submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
2 of 5
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that
complicity of the petitioner surfaced during investigation and recovery of
800 grams of heroin was effected from her. She submits that the total
contraband recovered in the present case is of commercial quantity and
thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted. She, on
instructions, has submitted that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none
has been examined so far. She has placed on record the custody certificate
of the petitioner on record.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is deciphered that the complicity of the petitioner surfaced during the
investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The total
recovery effected in the present case is of commercial quantity. As
submitted before this Court, out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none
has been examined so far. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has
suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 27 days as on
19.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court cannot ignore the fact that the speedy trial is the fundamental
right of every accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd
Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260,
this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the
ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid
case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-
19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under
Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the
3 of 5
accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence)
would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in
punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as
well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special
conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered
within constitutional parameters is where the court is
reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on
record (whenever the bail application is made) that the
accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result
in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences
such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. xxxxx
21. .....it would be important to reflect that laws which
impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
22. xxxxx
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime,
"as crime not only turns admirable, but the more
professional the crime, more honour is paid to the
criminal"22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison
Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further
deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest
economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several
cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds
and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be
sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an
acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure
that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court.
4 of 5
8. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on
the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the
sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned
counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of
bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said
herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
20.03.2026 JUDGE
ps-I
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
