Ramandeep Kaur @ Tattu Wali v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18213-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.05.2025 RAMANDEEP KAUR @ TATTU WALI ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
 

    ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Reply        

  Deputy Superintendent of Police      !

    " #  $ %&  

 %%  #    % .

2.

Arguments heard.

3.

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 09.10.2024 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act City Barnala, District Barnala no. 2), Mo 4.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor any recovery has

-2been effected from her. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused with whom the petitioner has no concern. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2024 and after the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in Court and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time, thus, prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the reply filed by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was nominated by the co-accused as the supplier of the contraband, who were apprehended by the police party and 950 intoxicant tablets containing Alprazolam salt was recovered from them, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. He submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail and prays for dismissal of the petition. 6.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the story of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2024, the police party received a secret information that co-accused Veeru Kaur, Sonu, Gurmail Singh @ Gola, Satnam Singh @ Satti and Baljinder Singh @ Kaka are involved in the business of selling intoxicant tablets. Accordingly the police party apprehended them and from their possession 950 loose intoxicant tablets containing Alprazolam salt was recovered, which falls within the category of commercial quantity. FIR was registered and during the course of their interrogation, the co-accused persons disclosed the name of the petitioner as the supplier of the contraband and accordingly, the petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2024. However, consequent upon the arrest

-3of the petitioner, no recovery has been effected from her. After the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in Court, wherein the prosecution has cited 12 witnesses however, none has been examined till date. The criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.

7.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 8.

'  

# 

#  %      

  &# (#         ) %  % #  

  %%#   # #   

  ##  #)  ) 9.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 22.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No