Tamanna Alias Tannu v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62810-2025 Decided on : 10.12.2025 Tamanna @ Tannu ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
*** , J (ORAL)
!"# $ %
&
'
($)
%*'
(
&' + ,
- &
,
$ %
'"
.
. .
/
'0 1 .
%2/ "
!"#
.
* 3
/
4
.
. /
!"#3
.
55/
"
. /
/
* '0 1' /
5
6
.
*
/
5 /
7
%
$
7 5
/
5 / 3
/
8/
. / . 5
7
5 . / $ 3
5
.
.
4 5
/
//
4 /
5
/
*
// 6
However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is the first time offender as she is not involved in any other case. 2 '6.
9
.
/
/
5
5
.
.
% '
/
/
.
0/
4 : /9
!
5
;
!"
#
$ % & ' #(
$
% % % $
& ' #(
)
!"
#
%
*+ !"
#
%
!"
#,
<
4 : /9 0/
"
#$
%&'( ) *"
+ + ( !, !
0/
4 = /9
7
) + ( 4 : /9 .
&'
($> 0/
) "%
$ %# + '
-
. - ./0012+ /3 2! ;
$$ %%
"
&-
! "
#( -.
$$ !"
#
/
$
$ 0 / ,
$$
+ 4 !
" ! % 5
$
% 5
% % $
$$ %%
!"
#
2
$
/ % (
$
$( 0 %
, % %
$$
#$$
$
*
/ 5
5
7 5
/
* . 0 /
5
/
45
5
/
/
( > he investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 20 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the fact that the trial
will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner
4
. 5 5
'
9
"
# 0/
4
5 6
7 /8-. -
./2/
4 = '89
/
5
/
/
' 9
"
6 $
$7
$
8 7 13.
Moreover, prolonged detention of the petitioner, without any likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648, while dealing with an NDPS case, held that the principles of fairness embodied under Article 21 override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the Court observed: "20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved.
The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik).
be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable . Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling." 14.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. //
?
;
@ A