Baljeet State of Punjab Punjab v. M) CRM
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) 228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN TH ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT Manjeet Kaur @ Kaur @ Baljeet State of Punjab Punjab versus M) CRM-M-16245-2025 (O&M) 2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Aruz Khan Advocate for the p r the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present Second petition has been f the s been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nag a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fo nt of (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing
Legal Reasoning
, aring FIR No.173 dated 21.11.2022, registered for t d for the offences punishable under Se cotic der Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psyc d Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 olice (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Anaj M naj Mandi, District Patiala, Punjab. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in quest an n question is that the petitioner is an accused of bein of being involved in an FIR pertaining 0300 aining to NDPS Act involving 10300 intoxicant table t tablets of Tramadol. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner itioner has iterated that the petitioner was arrested o sted on 21.11.2022. Learned counse t the ounsel has further iterated that the petitioner was was extended the concession of inter - f interim bail on 25.04.2025 by a co- ordinate Bench Bench of this Court and she has no rned has not misused the same. Learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) 2 2 counsel has fu has further iterated that the mandatory Act ndatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been t been complied with, and thus, the from s, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defect
Legal Reasoning
defects. Learned counsel has iterated t d the rated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereo thereof cannot be fastened upon the p l has the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated terated that the petitioner has suffered 02 ffered incarceration for more than 02 years and 05 05 months. Thus, regular bail is praye s prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed uing pposed the present petition by arguing that the allegat allegations raised against the petitioner , itioner are serious in nature and, thus, she does not d s not deserve the concession of the regu unsel e regular bail. Learned State counsel has further sub er submitted that the instant bail plea is ction plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDP NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought t ot in ought to be dismissed, but he is not in a position to re n to refute that the petitioner has not mi terim not misused the concession of interim bail extended t nded to her vide the above said order ks to order. Learned State counsel seeks to place on recor record custody certificate dated 29.07 aken .07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re able records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested after sted on 21.11.2022 whereinafter investigation w tion was carried out and challan was and n was presented on 01.04.2023 and charges were f were framed on 20.05.2023. Total 10 been 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and only d only 03 have been examined till dat . till date, and 03 have been given up. The petitioner itioner was extended the concession o , ssion of interim bail on 25.04.2025, which is not be s not being misused by her, and the petit aring e petitioner is continuously appearing and facing the g the trial, in accordance with law. The t Bar The rival contentions raised at Bar MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) 3 3 give rise to de to debatable issues shall be ratiocina se of tiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Cou is Court does not deem it appropriate rival priate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at ns, at this stage, lest it may prejudice e has judice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought f t forward to indicate the likelihoo ding elihood of the petitioner absconding from the proce process of justice or interfering with th ith the prosecution evidence. 6.1. The trial is procrastinating and dled and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petiti petitioner. As per custody certificate y the ificate dated 29.07.2025 filed by the learned State c State counsel, the petitioner has alread for a s already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years and 05 months & is not sho other shown to be involved in any other case/ FIR. In th In this view of the matter, the rigor im f the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stan stands diluted in light of the Article 2 rticle 21 of the Constitution of India. 6.2. This Court in a judgment titled of titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed assed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025 lying 25:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio ratio decidendi of the judgments of rt in ts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Kh ra Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of B bdul te of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antul Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC aikh SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of M of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3 ohd 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussa @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 20 peal lhi), 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 d 2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta The “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ West ry @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal”, Speci , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.553 titled No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohamma ammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. Th inal vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.116 No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 tit ra @ 22 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) 4 4 Gopalrusma V a Vs. Union of India, and Ankur C dhya kur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024( 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held s held thus:- The right to a speed “7.8. only a vital safeguard to pre incarceration; to mitigate anxiety accusation as well as to curtail any accused to defend himself, but th interest paving way for a spee repeatedly actuated in the recent the above-referred to Supreme Co a series of decisions opening up ne The concept of speedy trial is ama an essential part of the fundame guaranteed and preserved under speedy trial begins with the actual the arrest of the accused and c continues at all stages, namely, the trial, appeal and revision so that a result due to impermissible and av the commission of the offence consummate into a finality, could early hearing and quick disposal ju jurisprudence. The overcrowded C of work and the resultant pressu Police, indubitably keeps the e mechanism under stress and strai excuse for keeping the sword of Da for an indefinite period of time. It fo criminal justice system, rather it m The guarantee of a speedy trial i and prevent delay by imposing on an obligation to proceed with the t The guarantee serves a threefold accused against oppressive pre- relieves the accused of the anxie unresolved criminal charges and la that evidence will be lost or memo time, thus, impairing the ability of It It goes without saying that the con are grave. Accused, presumed inno subjected to psychological and ph usually under onerous conditions. of detention of such an accused innocent members of his family. not peedy and expeditious trial is not prevent undue and oppressive ive the iety and concern accompanying the an il any impairment in the ability of an ut there is an overarching societal tal speedy trial. This right has been een i of ent past and the ratio decidendi of e Court’s judgments have laid down wn up new vistas of fundamental rights. hts. as amalgamated into the Article 21 as damental right to life and liberty, rty, der our Constitution. The right to to of tual restraint imposed at the time of d consequent incarceration which ich y, the stage of investigation, inquiry, iry, ay hat any possible prejudice that may of d avoidable delay since the time of nce till the criminal proceedings ngs rial, ould be averted. The speedy trial, nal osal are sine qua non of criminal ed Court-dockets, the heavy volume me ressure on the prosecution and the the tial he entire criminal jurisprudential strain. However, this cannot be an an f Damocles hanging on the accused sed the e. It does not serve any credit to the r it makes for a sad state of affairs. irs. rial is intended to avoid oppression ion ion g on the Court and the prosecution ch. the trial with a reasonable dispatch. fold purpose. Firstly, it protects the the , it -trial imprisonment; secondly, it to nxiety and public suspicion due to nd lastly, it protects against the risk risk emories dimmed by the passage of of elf. ty of the accused to defend himself. consequences of pre-trial detention ion innocent, till proven otherwise, are are ife, d physical deprivations of jail-life, ions. Equally important, the burden en the sed frequently falls heavily on the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) 5 5 There is yet anothe deserves consideration at this stag case relate to accused being in commercial quantity of contraban While considering a bail petition quantity, the Court has to keep in under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 19 can grant bail to an accused p prosecutor and after having sati which are reasonable grounds fo not guilty of the offence charged/a to commit any offence while on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, scrutinized against the backdrop to a speedy trial. The right to life rendered nugatory by unwarranted particularly where such delay(s) p accused nor justified at the end reasons. An individual cannot inordinate period of time by taking Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in order to ensure speedy and tim the Act, has provided for the cons Section 36-A of the Act. How Nelson’s eye to the protracted del that frustrate this legislative purp bound to ensure that it does not an individual’s fundamental rig contained in a statute. While dea governed by the rigours of Section Court must strike a judicious b intent to curb the menace of drugs accused to a fair and expeditious without justifiable cause, risks tr into punitive imprisonment, an principle of justice and equity. p ich other aspect of the matter which stage. The allegations in the present ent g involved in an FIR relating to to 85. aband under the NDPS Act, 1985. ial tion in a case involving commercial ep in mind the rigours enumerated ted rts t, 1985 which mandates that Courts lic ed only after hearing the public satisfied itself of twin conditions ons s for believing that the accused is is ely ed/alleged and that, he is not likely on bail. The stringent rigours of of Act, 1985 must be meticulously sly ght rop of accused’s fundamental right fe and personal liberty cannot be be ranted delays in the judicial process, ss, the y(s) is neither attributable to the end of the prosecution by cogent ent not be kept behind bars for an an in aking refuge in rigours laid down in m, 985. The legislature in its wisdom, timely disposal of the cases under der der nstitution of special Courts under urn However, this Court cannot turn d delays and systematic inefficiency ncy purpose. A Court of law is duty- - of become complicit in violation of rights, notwithstanding anything ing dealing with bail petition in a case ase the ction 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the s balance between the legislative ive rugs and the sacrosanct right of the the on, ous trial. Prolonged incarceration, ion ks transforming pre-trial detention the an outcome antithetical to the incarceration, ivocal inference is that where the the Ergo, the unequivoc ithin a reasonable time, resulting in in trial has failed to conclude within ous the precious militates against it mi prolonged p liberty granted under the law and, nd, fu fundamental rights of life and libe overriding the statutory embargo rgo as such, conditional liberty ove be the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be created under Section 37 of the iven case. In other words, grant of t of considered as per facts of a given mmercial quantity, on the ground of of bail in a case pertaining to comme of e said to be fettered by Section 37 of undue delay in trial, cannot be sai the NDPS Act, 1985.” MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 6 CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) Suffice to say, further detention of ial is ion of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted i anted in the facts and circumstances of t es of the case. 7. Keeping in view the entirety of fac and, of factual milieu of the case in hand, this Court is rt is inclined to confirm the order d the rder dated 25.04.2025 whereby the interim regular egular bail was extended to the petition etitioner. 8. In view of above, the present pe er is sent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be r to be released on regular bail on her fur o the furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of ion of the Ld. concerned trial Court r, in Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to con to conditions that may be imposed by Duty sed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the te, the petitioner shall remain bound by nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tria (iii) The petitioner shall not abse t mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent herself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not com (v) The petitioner shall deposit t commit any offence while on bail. h the eposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO o shall not change her cell permission of the trial Court (vii) The petitioner shall not in an (viii) The petitioner shall submit every month, an affidavit, b to the effect that she has no of any offence after being petitioner is found to be inv being enlarged on bail in th her affidavit or otherwise, t forthwith, for cancellation course, shall be ratiocinated give her cellphone number to the the and SHO of concerned Police Station and prior cell-phone number without prior Court/Illaqa Magistrate. t in any manner try to delay the trial. y of submit, on the first working day of avit, before the concerned trial Court, ourt, ssion has not been involved in commission se the being released on bail. In case the be involved in any offence after her her il in the present FIR, on the basis of sis of ove, wise, the State is mandated to move, ut of lation of her bail which plea, but of inated upon merits thereof. 9. In case of breach of any of the those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected ial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-16245- -2025 (O&M) 7 7 hereinabove or ove or upon showing any other sufficie inant ufficient cause, the State/ complainant shall be at liber at liberty to move cancellation of bail of bail of the petitioner. 10. 11. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be n of shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 12. Since the main case has been d eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if a
Decision
sed off. on, if any, shall also stands disposed off (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment