Navdeep Kaur Alias Dipi v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-12 2972-2025 -1IN T THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ JAB & HARYANA AT RH CHANDIGAR CRM Date M-M-12972-2025 (O & M) of decision: 29.10.2025 NAVDEEP P KAUR ALIAS DIPI ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: H Present :

AMAN CH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN N CHAUDHARY Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

e, Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DA G Punjab.

HAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition n filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 202 23 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.35 date ed 22.03.2024, registered under r Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, at Police Station City-I, Sangrur r.

2.

Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for r 1 year, 7 months and 1 day. H He alleges false implication, as she was app prehended a day prior to the lod dging of the FIR, from Sunami Gate Marke et, Sangrur, as her father is invol lved in a few NDPS cases. The date of her marriage was fixed two days aft ter the arrest. Even otherwise it is a debatab ble issue whether she was in th he conscious possession of the

CRM-M-12972-2025 -2contraband, as the same was allegedly recovered from the foot mat of the Activa. In CRM-M-19387-2024 filed by the petitioner, it was directed by this Court that the CCTV footage of the cameras installed at CIA Staff, Bahadur Singh Wala, Lahda Kothi, Sangrur, District Sangrur be preserved and SIT was constituted. Co-accused Baljinder Singh had been granted bail on 09.07.2025, thereafter even a similarly circumstanced co-accused Harpreet Kaur, who was in custody for 1 year and 6 months, was granted bail on 22.09.2025. Challan was presented on 18.07.2024, charges have been framed, however, only 2 PWs out of 15 have been examined and 2 were given up. She is involved in two more cases under NDPS involving small quantity, it being 3 grams and 5.05 grams, in one of which she is on bail and in the other she has already undergone the sentence. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

The custody certificate dated 28.10.2025 and affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sangrur, filed by the learned State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 7 months and 1 day. 4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot along with Rs.29,000/- cash as drug money and 50 envelopes besides the contraband. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner

CRM-M-12972-2025 -3being on bail in other case and the co-accused having been enlarged on bail.

5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."

7.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

8.

This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in

CRM-M-12972-2025 -4Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail. 9.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 7 months and 1 day; is on bail in the other case; co-accused are on bail; 11 PWs are yet to be examined; the trial is likely to take a considerable time and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of her right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is allowed.

10.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

CRM-M-12972-2025 -5- (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of which she is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse her liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish her address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, she seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

CRM-M-12972-2025 -611. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 12.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. 29.10.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) himanshu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No