Asha Rani v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-538-2025 DECIDED ON: 10.01.2025 ASHA RANI .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Asha Rani, aged about 53 years, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.362, dated 26.12.2024, under Section(s) 21/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner argues that there is recovery of 12 grams of powder (Heroin) from one Priya, and 18 grams of recovery of powder (Heroin) from one Rajinder. From the disclosure statements of the said two accused, name of the present petitioner has been revealed out as supplier. Thus, counsel for the petitioner submits that involvement of the petitioner merely on the basis of the disclosure statement recorded by the police, is not admissible piece of evidence, and therefore, chances of conviction of the petitioner are very less. Thus, she prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3.

Notice of motion.

LAVISHA 2025.01.13 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-538-2025 -24.

On advance notice, Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State, and submits that the allegations appear to be truthful, because name of the petitioner was disclosed by the main accused Priya and Rajinder at the time of recovery from them, and therefore, name of the present petitioner appears in the FIR itself.

5.

Learned State counsel also informs that the petitioner is accused in other 5 cases under the NDPS Act, as has also been discussed in the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, and she is a habitual offender.

6.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel for both the parties. Considering the aspect that the petitioner is involved in many cases, and name of the petitioner appears in the FIR itself, after being disclosed by the main accused Priya and Rajinder, this Court does not find any sound reason to grant extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Hence, present petition stands dismissed.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 10.01.2025 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2025.01.13 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh