[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
CRM-M-71654-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106 CRM-M-71654-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.05.2026
KARAMJIT KAUR
... PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
.. RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
***
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
CRM-13219-2026
1. This application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
(erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C) for placing on record additional documents as
Annexures P-5 & P-6.
2. Heard.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
Annexures P-5 & P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-71654-2025
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.)
seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.166 dated
30.08.2025, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police
Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur.
CRM-M-71654-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.08.2025, the police party,
while on patrol duty, apprehended co-accused Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny and
Bara Singh, who were allegedly found in possession of 51 grams of heroin.
During investigation, co-accused(s) suffered disclosure statement and named
the present petitioner in the alleged offence. In consequence thereto, a raid was
conducted and recovery of 500 grams of heroin along with cash amount of
Rs.11 lakhs was allegedly effected from the house of the petitioner at Amritsar
on 01.09.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the
petitioner was not named in the FIR and was arraigned as an accused only on
the basis of disclosure statement(s) of co-accused(s). Besides the disclosure
statement(s), there is no incriminating material against the petitioner which
would connect her with the alleged offence and no recovery of contraband has
been effected from her. It is further submitted that the amount allegedly
recovered from the petitioner formed part of the sale consideration received
from the sale of her land and, therefore, could not be treated as drug money. It
is also submitted that the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-
accused during police custody are not admissible in evidence unless duly
corroborated by independent material.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not
apprehended by the local police but by the Police from Sangrur. It is further
submitted that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act as the grounds of arrest were neither explained to the petitioner nor her
family members were informed prior to her arrest. Moreover, the petitioner was
CRM-M-71654-2025 (O&M) -3-
not produced before the Magistrate at Amritsar and she was brought to Sangrur
where she was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel also
submits that the petitioner, who is 38 years old lady and the mother of two
minor children, is in custody for the last more than 08 months and 19 days and
is not involved in any other case. He, therefore, prays for release of the
petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the
cited 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.
5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the
petitioner is in custody for the last more than 08 months and 19 days. He, upon
instructions, submits that none of the cited 19 prosecution witnesses has been
examined so far.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner, who is 38 years old lady and
the mother of two minor children, is in custody for the last more than 08
months and 19 days, she is not involved in any other case and that the trial is
likely to take a long time to conclude as none of the cited 19 prosecution
witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate
to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of
the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends
of justice.
CRM-M-71654-2025 (O&M) -4-
8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on
regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate
concerned.
9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the
concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.
(H.S.GREWAL)
May 22, 2026 JUDGE
Sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
