MANDEEP KAU KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJ PUNJAB
Case Details
5 CRM-M-4179-2025 291 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA IN THE H AT CHANDIGARH AT CRM-M- Reserved o Pronounce -4179-2025 rved on : 08.04.2025 ounced on: 28.04.2025 MANDEEP KAU KAUR ...PETITIONER ...P VERSUS STATE OF PUNJ PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT ...R CORAM: HON’B ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHIT CHITKARA Argued by:Mr. An Ankit Sharma, Advocate for the petitione titioner. r. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Rah **** *** ANOOP CHITKA ITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Da Police Station Sections 049 20.04.2021 20 STF, SAS Nagar (Mohali) agar 21/25/27-A/29 of NDPS Act 1. The petitioner inc
Legal Reasoning
er incarcerated in the FIR captioned abov ourt d above had come up before this Court under Section 483 on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa P.C), ha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS] (439 Cr.P.C), seeking regular ba lar bail. 2. In para 23 of the b f the bail application, the accused declares th lares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and alleg d allegations are taken from the reply filed ased y filed by the State. On 20.04.2021, based on secret informa nformation, the Police seized 1 kg 10 g ner’s 10 grams of heroin from petitioner’s possession. The In The Investigator claims to have complied w ts of lied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 198 ct, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. Counsel for the p the petitioner submits that the petitioner n the tioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and and she is neither the owner nor the . On r the driver of the alleged vehicle. On instructions he fur he further submits that the petitioner shall ence r shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the com e commercial or intermediate quantity or th ction y or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDP f NDPS Act. He further submits that if th n the the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he h s, he has no objection if the State files appl in all s application for cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS NDPS Act, pending against the petitioner. H - oner. He further contends that further pre- trial incarceration ration would cause an irreversible injustice t stice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The State’s counse reply. counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and 1 integrity of this document 5 CRM-M-4179-2025 6. The petitioner seek er seeks bail on pre-trial custody of more th ore than two years and six months. REASONING: 7. The quantity allege allegedly involved in this case is commerc 37 of mercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in pply in the present case. The petitioner mu ut in er must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislatur S Act. islature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. Per the custody ce ody certificate dated 07.04.2025, the petiti s, 11 petitioner is in custody for 03 years, 11 months and 16 days in in this FIR. 9. The prolonged in ed incarceration, generally militates again ental s against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under under Article 21 of the Constitution and ional n and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override th rride the statutory embargo created under Se der Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 10. The petitioner is er is entitled to bail based on Dheeraj K Uttar eraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 66 rl) 6690-2022], decided on 25 Jan 2023. acted 2023. Dheeraj Shukla would be attracted when the three conditio onditions are fulfilled, (a). (b). (c) The The custody of more than two years and attr attributable to the accused. The The trial is at an initial stage. The petitioner is the first offender. The s not ars and six months and the delay was not 11. Considering the q the quantity involved and the pre-trial cus Act ial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted tracted. Given this, the criminal anteceden d for ecedents are also not a legal ground for denying the rigors of S rs of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 12. Given the penal pr enal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial c facie trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature o ature of allegations and the other factors pec e no ors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre her pre-trial incarceration at this stage, sub and e, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned i oned in this order. 13. Without comment menting on the case's merits, in the facts this e facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reason reasons mentioned above, the petitioner ma shall ner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from th from the time it is uploaded on this Court's o ourt's official webpage. CONDITIONS: 14. Given above, prov provided the petitioner is not required in shall ired in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in t ail in the FIR captioned above subject to fu on of t to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and 2 integrity of this document 5 CRM-M-4179-2025 the concerned Court Court and due to unavailability before /duty efore any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before ac ore accepting the surety, the concerned C f the rned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear ppear, such surety can produce the accused cused. 15. While furnishing shing a personal bond, the petitioner sha sonal er shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AAD AADHAR number 2. Passp Passport number (If available) and w attest attesting officer/court considers it approp considers the accused a flight risk. consi nd when the appropriate or 3. Mobi Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Ma Mail id (If available) 16. 17. This order order is subject to the petitioner’s complyin
Legal Reasoning
plying with the following terms. The petitio petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond e the y bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner sha ence, er shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbe rowbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or p any n, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police o olice officials, or any other person acquaint nces quainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissu r dissuade them from disclosing such facts t facts to the Police or the Court. 18. Given the b n the background of allegations against the nt to st the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect themembe embers of society, detection squad and in ld be and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary rimary optionsuntil the filing of the closu ittal. closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it ly, it would be appropriate to restrict t [This trict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being being imposed based on the preponderanc and derance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of nce of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable to be nable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an in s an intermediate sanction]. Given the natu other e nature of the allegations and the other circumstances pec peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall s , and shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if an , if any, along with the arms license to the fteen to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release fr ease from prison and inform the Investig ever, vestigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indi e Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner sha laim ner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of ac e of acquittal in this case, provided otherwi rned therwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting icting firearms would instill confidence in and nce in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would a ould also restrain the accused from influenc g the nfluencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 19. The condit conditions mentioned above imposed by th form d by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the acc the accused does not repeat the offense and drug se and also to block the menace of drug Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and 3 integrity of this document 5 CRM-M-4179-2025 abuse. In Mohamm ohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Del Writ f Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal iminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided udge ecided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bai ourt he bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only ha nly have a nexus to the purpose that the o be at they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the to the purpose of imposing them. The cou tions he courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the e the liberty of the accused and the neces g so, necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that wo hat would result in the deprivation of rights rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 20. In Md. Taji d. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Ben SLP est Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Pa at if in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is fo r is found involved in such like offence in fu nted ce in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will y will liable to be withdrawn and the petiti ssary petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 21. This bail i ail is conditional, and the foundational ner ional condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any n ny non-bailable offense, the State shall f ion all file an application for cancellation of this bail before fore the Trial Court, which shall be at lib at liberty to cancel this bail. 22. Any observ observation made hereinabove is neither an ase's ther an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the hall the trial Court advert to these comments ments. 23. A certified rtified copy of this order would not be nee any be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the P r the Petitioner can download this order alo ficial er along with case status from the official web page of this C this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If erify opy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, su ity, such an officer can also verify its authe use s authenticity and may download and use the downloaded co ded copy for attesting bonds. 24. Petition al ion allowed in terms mentioned above. Al stand ve. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 28.04.2025 renubala Whether speaking/ Whether reportabl aking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No ortable: ANOOP CHITKARA) (AN JUDGE Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and 4 integrity of this document