Baljinder Kaur @ Baby v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 BALJINDER KAUR @ BABY ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 35 dated 28.03.2024 under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act 1985 (Sections 25/27-A/29/31 NDPS Act and Sections 342/411/120-B/482 IPC added and Section 21 NDPS Act deleted in challan) registered at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar Rural. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that a secret information has been received to the effect that Rano i.e. mother of the petitioner has been indulging in illegal trade of contraband. The police party raided their premises and 310 loose tablets of Etizolam were recovered from the co-accused namely Karamjit Singh @ Bobby. On his disclosure, he stated that he was running the de-addiction centre in the said premises let out to him by the petitioner.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been falsely involved in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025. The petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2024. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr.DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 10 days . He further submits that out of 61 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 10 days; out of 61 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-38.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of her bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 18.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No