Sarbjeet Kaur v. Punjab State of Punjab
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 238 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of -M-37827-2025 (O&M) ate of decision: July 23, 2025 Sarabjeet Kaur t Kaur @ Sabbi @ Sarbjeet Kaur versus Punjab State of Punjab ….Petitioner ioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate (presence marked through video vocate for the petitioner video-conferencing). Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed the filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Naga Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fo nt of (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing F
Facts
, aring FIR No.115 dated 08.03.2025, registered for d for the offences punishable unde f the under Section 22/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drug Drugs and Psychotropic Substances DPS tances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Police Station Goindwal Sahib, Tarn , Tarn Taran. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in que is in question is that the petitioner is accused of bei of being involved in FIR pertaining t 6.37 ining to NDPS Act involving 296.37 grams of Tram Tramadol. 3.
Legal Reasoning
dgment passed by this Court in CRM hul CRM-M-65094-2024 titled Anshul Sardana versu versus State of Punjab, decided on ation ded on 14.01.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC :PHHC:004198), relevant part thereof ereof reads thus:- At this juncture, it “6. herein to a judgment passed by titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State Supreme Court 5592’, relevant w “155. We answer the (i) That the o powers under are “police o fer e, it would be apposite to refer d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court urt 20 State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 nt whereof reads as under: r the reference by stating: ith he officers who are invested with Act nder section 53 of the NDPS Act of ce officers within the meaning of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 3 3 section 25 of t which any co them would b of section 25 cannot be tak convict an acc t of of the Evidence Act, as a result of y confessional statement made to to ld be barred under the provisions ons nd n 25 of the Evidence Act, and to e taken into account in order to accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a sta 67 cannot be use in the trial of ACL” statement recorded under section ion Act Act of of used as a confessional statement ent PS al of an offence under the NDPS NDPS the More recently, the judgment titled as ‘Smt. Chandmiya @ Ladoo B Narcotics Control Burea reiterated the ratio deciden Supreme Court in the case a the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a mt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid id rat, o Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, has ureau' 2024 INSC 290’, has ble cidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble ase of Tofan Singh (supra). the Hon'ble Supreme Court; while ile Further, the H 6.1 r bail in a case under NDPS Act, ct, dealing with a plea for ba ru tled as 'State by (NCB) Bengaluru 1985; in a judgment titled a CR Arimutta & Anr.', 2022(1) RCR vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Ari ld as under:- (Criminal) 762, has held a rds Having gone through the records “9. Hav the tabuluted statement of the the alongwith the ts submitted on behalf of the the respondents s ing NCB and on carefully perusing petitioner-NCB ned orders passed in each case, it , it the impugned the voluntary ary that for that except emerges ase s of A-1 and A-2 in the first case statements of of the respondents themselves ves and that of under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, ct, recorded unde tial s, prima facie, that no substantial it appears, pr as available with the prosecution ion material was the the time ime of arrest at the led ts with the allegations levelled respondents w rug in drug indulging them of them against . It has not been denied by the the trafficking. It t in n that except for the respondent in prosecution th her ) No. 1569/2021, none of the other SLP (Crl.) No ts were found to be in possession ion respondents w ercial quantities of psychotropic pic of commercia the the s, as contemplated under substances, a NDPS Act to connect MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 4 4 of the It has been held in clear terms ms 10. Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, du, in Tofan Sing nal that a confessional SCC 1, (2021) 4 SC recorded under Section 67 of the the statement reco t will remain inadmissible in the the NDPS Act wi In n offence under the NDPS Act. In trial of un off of the aforesaid decision, the the the teeth of ade by the petitioner-NCB, on the the arresis made nts he confession/voluntary statements basis of the co der pondents or the co-accused under of the respond of the NDPS Act, cannot form the the Section 67 of t ers overturning the impugned orders basis for over of them on bail. The CDR details of releasing them the accused or the allegations of of some of the a of of evidence on the part of one of tampering of e be ndents is an aspect that will be the responden trial. ial. stage at a examined not foresaid reason, this Court is not For the afore 6th o interfere in the orders dated 16th inclined to int r, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th 6th September, 20 2020, 19th December, 2019 and nd January, 2020 rl.) uary, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) 20th January No. 22702/2020, SLP (Cri.) No. No. No Diary No. 1, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP LP 1454/2021, SL No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. (Crl.) No. 177 impugned ed 1 respectively. The r 2080/2021 re, accordingly, upheld and the the orders are, a the the Leave Petitions Special Leav NCB seeking cancellation of bail ail petitioner-NCB are o the respective respondents, are granted to th as meritless." dismissed as m er, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; rt; 6.2 Still further, plea for grant of bail in a case ase while dealing with a plea as 985; in a judgment titled as under NDPS Act, 1985 State of Haryana, bearing Special ial 'Vijay Singh vs. The State on l.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on Leave to Appeal (Crl.) N s under: 17.05.2023', has held as un ted tioner is alleged to have committed “The petitione under der offences ugs 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Sections 15 a 85 chotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Psychotr er called the NDPS Act". His His (hereinafter c as n for anticipatory bail was application ons y the High Court. The allegations rejected by th aw are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw in the FIR ar filed by MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 5 5 - st) was recovered from the co- (Doda Post) The petitioner concededly was not not accused. The the spot but was named by the co- - present at the her That apart there is no other accused. Tha implicate the petitioner. The he material to n urges that another case with ith prosecution u r s of commission of offence under allegations of S Act are pending against the the the NDPS A ose . It is not denied that in those petitioner. It gs he was granted bail. proceedings h ese these to regard ving Having nces, the petitioner is directed to to circumstances ed on anticipatory bail, subject to t to the enlarged o urt s and conditions as the trial Court such terms an may impose. The peti All pend petition is allowed. sed pending applications are disposed of.” hat ll established principle of law that It is a well es 6.3 of a co-accused under Section 67 of a confession made by a co herently a very weak piece of of the NDPS Act is inhere ents), by themselves, cannot form rm evidence. Such statements nd conviction of an individual and the sole basis for the con ith utmost caution in conjunction ion must be scrutinized with u evidence. Moreover, no recovery ery with other substantive evid er, the possession of the petitioner, has been effected from the uently implicated as an accused sed who has been subsequent f disclosure statement of the co- - solely on the basis of dis nd regular bail pertains to life and accused. However, as reg Courts are obligated to strike a a liberty of individual, Cou eguarding personal liberty and nd balance between safegua lso administration of justice as also ensuring the effective adm value and nd fina final investigation. The sclosure statement made by a co- - admissibility of the disclos are domain of the trial Court and are accused fall within the dom ring the course of the trial in in to be adjudicated during lished principles of law. However, er, accordance with establishe urt plea for regular bail, this Court while adjudicating a plea der ous to the circumstances under cannot remain oblivious as been arraigned or implicated, ed, which the petitioner has b nce of the allegations, the evidence including the nature of ific the offence as well as the specific linking the petitioner to the etitioner in the commission of the the role attributed to the petiti rima facie examination of these ese alleged offence. A prima not nsure that the process of law is not factors is essential to ensur sdirected.” misused, abused or misdire evidentiary MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 6 CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) The rival contentions raised at Ba ssues d at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratioc ratiocinated upon during the course ot course of trial. This Court does not deem it approp appropriate to delve deep into these r tage, these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may pre ay prejudice the trial. Nothing tangibl rd to angible has been brought forward to indicate the li the likelihood of the petitioner abs ss of er absconding from the process of justice or int or interfering with the prosecution ody cution evidence. As per custody certificate date te dated 22.07.2025 filed by the learne ioner learned State counsel, the petitioner has already su ady suffered incarceration for a period and period of more than 02 months and 29 days. Furth Further, as per the said custody certif ed to certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in lved in 03 more cases. However, thi ound er, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by it t by itself, to decline the concession o ioner ssion of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in q IR in question when a case is made ou ua ade out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in que in question by ratiocinating upon the f said the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance liance in this regard can be placed upo n’ble ed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir R nd ir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Di f the ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcu Calcutta High Court in case of Sridha CR ridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 47 l) 477 & judgments of this Court in C titled urt in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh S sh Singh v. State of Haryana, decid lraj , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Har f Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) inal) 191. Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 7 CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction faction of the Ld. concerned trial Cou ever, ial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to tion to conditions that may be imp trial e imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate, the petitioner shall wing remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tri (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not c e on not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in give his cellphone number to the the ation r/SHO of concerned Police Station prior his cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. the not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submi every month, an affidavit, Judge of NDPS Court, to t involved in commission released on bail. In case involved in any offence af in the present FIR, on t otherwise, the State is man cancellation of his bail whi ratiocinated upon merits the submit, on the first working day of y of ecial idavit, before the concerned Special rt, to the effect that he has not been been ssion of any offence after being eing o be case the petitioner is found to be nce after his being enlarged on bail bail , on the basis of his affidavit or it or , for is mandated to move, forthwith, for ll be il which plea, but of course, shall be rits thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected al Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 8 8 State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner itioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody s tody since 23.04.2025. Learned couns rther counsel for the petitioner has further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 2 2 iterated that that the petitioner has been falsely R in falsely implicated into the FIR in question solely solely on the basis of disclosure state , re statements of co-accused, namely, Angrej Singh @ ingh @ Ghacho and Vikramjit Singh Singh @ Vicky. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th at the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio rned cession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel h unsel has further submitted that the in ly hit the instant bail plea is adversely hit by the Section ection 37 of the NDPS Act; thus, dism on is dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. Learned State counsel seeks tody eeks to place on record custody certificate date te dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is hich is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 23 uous 23.04.2025 and is in continuous custody since t since then. The prime evidence agains ge, is against the petitioner, at this stage, is the disclosure losure statements of co-accused, nam acho , namely, Angrej Singh @ Ghacho and Vikramjit ramjit Singh @ Vicky. At this juncture refer uncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgmen