← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10408/2025allowed

Rozi v. State Of Punjab

2025-07-24Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M-10408 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10408 of 2025 Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Rozi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

Present:

Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner.  

    **** 

 , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.300 dated 04.07.2022, under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 NDPS Act added lateron), registered at Police Station City Barnala, Punjab.

2.

Case of the prosecution is that co-accused Gelo Kaur alias Golo was found in possession of 100 loose intoxicant tablets of white colour and 260 gram intoxicant powder of white colour containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride. However, the petitioner was nominated by the said coaccused in her disclosure statement as she having been supplier of the contraband.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner from the contraband. The petitioner has undergone a period of 7 months and 10 days as under trial and till date, no witness has been examined, therefore, petitioner be released on regular bail. ANIL KUMAR 2025.07.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-10408 of 2025 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

 

   , accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 07 months and 10 days. 5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner and the fact that no prosecution witness has been examined till date; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of her bail.

( ) 

 24.07.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.07.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document