Sharanjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.209 Case No. : CRM-M-40470-2025 Decided On : November 03, 2025 Sharanjit Kaur ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.222 dated 12.11.2022, under Sections 22/29/21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as - NDPS Act) (offence under Section 27-A NDPS added later on), registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
The brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2022, police party apprehended a person namely Paramjit Lal @ Pamma @ Doctor along with two polythene bags containing 1600 and 450 intoxicant tablets respectively. As a result, the aforesaid FIR was registered against him. During investigation, it was revealed that the aforesaid Paramjit Lal @ Pamma @ Doctor used to sell the intoxicant tablets on his medical store and also used to stack the stock at his newly constructed house, from where he
got recovered currency worth Rs.1,01,24,000/- as well. The petitioner happens to be the wife of aforesaid Paramjit Lal @ Pamma @ Doctor and the house in question, from where the said recovery was effected, is in the name of the petitioner. Further investigation revealed that stocking of tablets and drug money in the house, which could have been constructed from the proceeds of illegal trade, was within the knowledge of the petitioner. In this way, name of the petitioner cropped up in the present case under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner and she has been involved in the present case being wife of the main accused. He has further contended that the petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged recovery or drug money in question. He has urged that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from her. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious as recovery of huge quantity of intoxicant tablets and drug money had been effected from the house of petitioner and she cannot plead ignorance about the same. Her custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation. So, she does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. Heard.
The alleged recovery of 2050 intoxicant tablets in the present case had been effected co-accused Paramjit Lal @ Pamma @ Doctor, who is husband of the petitioner. The petitioner has been nominated as accused under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act in the present case. The house, where her husband had stocked the intoxicant tablets and the drug money, was in
the name of the petitioner. The alleged recovery in the present case was effected on 12.11.2022, whereas she had been nominated as accused on 12.11.2024. Besides that, no other material has been placed on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in the present case. In the Challan presented against co-accused Paramjit Lal @ Pamma @ Doctor, he is stated to be absconding and trial is pending for his appearance.
Complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from her. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
November 03, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.