Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-20166-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-20166-2025 Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Ramandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 006 08.01.2025 City South, District 21 & 29 of NDPS Act Moga 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. Per paragraph 16 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 31.08.2025, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. Per the custody certificate dated 31.08.2025 the petitioner’s total custody in this
Facts
FIR is 07 months & 20 days. 4. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State, and para 3 reads as follows: “3(A) That with the commencement of investigation, the Investigation officer-ASI Jarnail Singh along with police party proceeded towards the location specified by informer and apprehended all the aforesaid accused including present petitioner-Ramandeep Kaur. Investigation officer extended all the accused with offer in terms of section 50 NDPS Act separately, with regard to their right of being searched in the presence of a Magistrate of Gazetted officer. The accused had opted to call a Gazetted officer at spot. Consequent thereto message was relayed by Investigation officer to Police control room. In furtherance of the intimation, answering 1 ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-20166-2025 2 deponent reached at spot at around 1:25 PM and inquired about the name and address of the accused. Answering deponent again asked from accused about their option to get some other Magistrate or Gazetted officer for the purpose of their search however the accused gave their written consent to take their search. B) That the search of the accused was conducted in a prescribed mahner and led to the recovery of Heroin and other articles from their possession of as per the following table: Sr. no. Name of accused Quantity of Manner of recovery Other Articles heroin of heroin 1 2 Akashdeep Singh 300 gram Front pocket of Currency notes alias Akash coat worth of Rs.500/- Kuljeet Singh 270 gram Inside of Jacket Currency notes worth of Rs.400/- and mobile phone Vivo with sim No.85570xxxxx, 91156xxxxx 3 Bohar Singh 130 gram Right pocket of Current notes pant worth of Rs.350/- and mobile phone Vivo with sim No.62835xxxxx, 76962xxxxx 4 Ramandeep Kaur NIL NA NIL 5. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 6. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-20166-2025 offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 3 7. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “5. The name and total weight of the drug: That there is recovery of aggregate 700 gram of Heroin has been effected from the accused and three separate parcels were prepared. The FSL Report has confirmed that the recovered contrabands from the possession of accused containing Diacetylmorphine i.e. Heroin. Role of Petitioner That the FIR has been registered against present petitioner among three more accused as mentioned above. The petitioner accompanied her husband Bohar Singh came to the co-accused Akashdeep Singh and Kuljeet Singh to take delivery of Heroin. Before the arrival of police, the present petitioner and her husband Bohar Singh took the delivery of Heroin. During search of accused, 130 gram Heroin was recovered from the possession of Bohar Singh which was supplied to them by Akashdeep and Kuljeet Singh. Akashdeep Singh had 300 gram and Kuljeet Singh was in possession of 270 gram more Heroin which were meant for further supply. The presence of the petitioner at the spot of recovery at Moga- Baghapurana G.T. Road along with her husband sufficiently indicates that the petitioner is also indulge in drug trafficking.” REASONING: 9. Dealing in heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Punishable U/s Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-20166-2025 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 4 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity Commercial Quantity 56 Heroin ****** Diacetylmorphine < 5 Gram > 250 Gram Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 821 (E) 11/14/1985 2(xvi)(d) ****** ****** 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts; Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage: Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other CRM-M-20166-2025 5 basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation. 10. The total quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 11. It shall be relevant to refer to Para 7 of the reply, which reads as follows: “7. Evidence Against the Petitioner: That in furtherance with the investigation, Police conducted raid at the specified location and apprehended the accused namely i) Akashdeep Singh ii) Kuljeet Singh ii) Bohar Singh iv) Ramandeep Kaur-Petitioner. All the accused were present at the same point and as per the information already received by Police party, the accused were assembled at the spot of recovery to give and take delivery of Heroin. Co-accused Akashdeep Singh, Kuljeet Singh and Bohar Singh, all were found in physical possession of Heroin, whereas the present petitioner-Ramandeep Kaur was accompanied with her husband Bohar Singh to take delivery of Heroin. The proceedings of search and seizure have been conducted by ASI Jarnail Singh and witnessed by ASI Harjinder Singh, C-2 Lovejeet Singh, L/C Gurcharan Kaur and by answering deponent as well. The witnesses have unequivocally established the complicity of present petitioner in drug trafficking.” 12. Based on the reply and FIR, a perusal of the evidence points out that there is no specific averment that the recovery was from the petitioner’s possession. The recovery is from the pockets of the males, one amongst whom was petitioner’s husband and the petitioner being a woman, may be unaware of the fact of the males possessing heroin in their pockets. Moreover, the recovery from the husband of petitioner to whom she was accompanying was 130 gram of heroin which is non-commercial and he has already been granted bail based on prolonged custody. 13. For now, the petitioner has prima facie satisfied the first condition of section 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very stringent conditions in this order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the offense. 14. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077- 2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows: ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh [10]. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is 5 CRM-M-20166-2025 6 to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two conditions is not met, the ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts. [30]. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while granting bail involving commercial quantities, the following fundamental principles emerge: (a). In case of inconsistency, S. 37 of the NDPS Act prevails over S. 439 CrPC. [Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, Para 6]. (b). The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7]. (c). The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act provide the legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a case for grant of bail has been made out. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12]. In case the Court proposes to grant bail, two conditions are (d). to be mandatorily satisfied the standard requirements under the provisions of the CrPC or any other India v. Niyazuddin SK &Anr, enactment. 2017:INSC:686 [Para 7], (2018) 13 SCC 738, Para 7]. in addition [Union of to (e). Apart from granting opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance are the Court's satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721, Para 9].
Legal Reasoning
(f). The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering substantial probable causes for believing and justifying that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7]. (g). The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [State of Kerala v. Rajesh, 2020:INSC:88 [Para 21], AIR 2020 SC 721, Para 21]. (h). Twin conditions of S. 37 are cumulative and not alternative. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7]. ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-20166-2025 7 (i). At the bail stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14]. (j). If the statements of the prosecution witnesses are believed, then they would not result in a conviction. [Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566, Para 3]. (k). Merely recording the submissions of the parties does not amount to an indication of a judicial mind or a judicious application of mind. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12]. (l). Section 37 departs from the long-established principle of presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person until proved otherwise. [Union of India v. Sanjeev v. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5]. (m). While considering the application for bail concerning Section 37, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, Para 11]. (n). The confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the [Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, NDPS Act. 2020:INSC:620, (2021) 4 SCC 1] (o). In the absence of clarity on the quantitative analysis of the samples from the laboratory, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India 2021:INSC:877 [Para 11], 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235, Para 10]. (p). When there is evidence of conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, such accused is not entitled to bail given Section 37 of the Act as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, Para 12]. (p). Bail must be subject to stringent conditions. [Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online SC 84, Para 12]. [31]. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC. 15. Given the above, the petitioner is entitled to bail. ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 7 CRM-M-20166-2025 16. The petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with higher role. 8 17. The discussion is only for analyzing bail and shall not be referred to for charges and trial, which shall be on its own merits, without referring to this order. 18. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances unique and peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. CONDITIONS: 19. Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000. 20. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the “Chief Judicial Magistrate” of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 21. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 22. 23. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 8 9 CRM-M-20166-2025 24. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report, discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 25. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 26. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 27. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 28. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 9 10 CRM-M-20166-2025 State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 29. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 30. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.” 31. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 24.09.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: YES. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 10