Rajwinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-28049-2026 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 04.06.2026.
Rajwinder Kaur ....Petitioner.
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent.
*** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ---
Present:
Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Rajwinder Kaur, aged 30 years, has filed this petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.27 dated 20.01.2026, registered under Sections 22, 29, 61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. 2.
As per allegations in the FIR, on the basis of secret information, raid was conducted and thereupon accused Gulab Singh was arrested from whose possession 450 loose tablets of Alprazolam along with 50 tablets of Etizolam were recovered. On the basis of his disclosure statement, name of another accused namely Harjinder Singh was involved in the case as supplier of the tablets to main accused Gulab Singh. When accused Harjinder Singh was arrested on 21.01.2026, during investigation through his disclosure statement, other accused namely Seeto, Gogi Devi, Meet Singh and
petitioner-Rajwinder Kaur were also nominated as accused in the case. Petitioner is inside jail since 31.01.2026.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no narcotic contraband or even psychotropic substance could be recovered from the possession of the petitioner when he was arrested by the police. Thus, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner also. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate dated 03.06.2026 along with short reply dated 03.06.2026, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place with the paper book.
Learned State counsel opposed the bail on the ground that keeping in view the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of bail.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto. 6.
No other evidence could be highlighted by learned State counsel except of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, whereas petitioner is inside jail since 31.01.2026 and petitioner is not involved in any other similar activity in her past career.
In view of the fact that petitioner being a first-time offender, this Court finds that she deserves another opportunity to rehabilitate herself in society. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the prayer for bail. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Consequently, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing bail/ surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 7.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
8.
The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 9.
It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.
10.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 04.06.2026 jitender Whether speaking/ reasoned :
Yes/ No Whether Reportable :
Yes/ No