Sirmanjit Kaur @ Simranjeet Kaur @ Simran v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 11.09.2025

Pronounced on: 29.09.2025 SIMRANJIT KAUR @ SIMRANJEET KAUR @ SIMRAN ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 21.02.2023 Bahawala, District Fazilka 22(c) of NDPS Act (Sections 27/29 of NDPS Act added later on) 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2.

Per paragraph 8 of the bail application and para 4(E) of the reply, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

FIR No.

Date Offenses Police Station 1.

02.08.2021 21/61/85 of NDPS Act Bahav Wala, District Fazilka 3.

The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 21-02-2023, based on prior information, the Police seized 81 strips containing total 810 tablets of Tramadol from the house of the petitioner and co-accused Lokesh. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel for the petitioner submits that she was on bail, due to her nonappearance, trial Court cancel her bail and she undertakes to appear on each and every

date.

4.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING:

5.

As per paragraph 4A of the reply, the contraband is 272.14 grams of tramadol. 6.

Dealing in 272.14 grams of tramadol in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Tramadol Quantity detained 272.14 Gram Punishable U/s S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate 108.86% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1762 (E) dated 26.04.2018 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1762(E) 4/26/2018 238 ZH Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Tramadol Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ****** Small Quantity < 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 26-Apr-2018 & 26-JulNotification No. & dated S.O.1761(E) & S.O.

3448(E)

110Y Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Tramadol Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ****** 7.

The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8.

Petitioner was earlier on bail and due to her non-appearance, her bail was cancelled and now after arrest, she spend 03 months and 15 days in custody per custody certificate dated 01.09.2025.

9.

As such, this Court is inclined to grant her bail. CONDITIONS:

10.

Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000.

11.

Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 12.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available)

13.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 14.

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

15.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 16.

It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above. 17.

In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished." 18.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.09.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.