← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/63280/2025allowed

Banso Bai v. State Of Punjab

2025-11-17Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

 CRM-M-63280-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63280-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Banso Bai ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated 27.04.2025, registered under Sections 18/61/85 of NDPS Act and 52-A of Prisons Act, 1894 (Sections 21/27/27A/29 of NDPS Act, 25/54/59 Arms Act, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 111(2) BNS Act, 2023 added later on) at Police Station City-I, Sangrur, District Sangrur. 2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, a 60 years old lady, is in custody for the last 6 months and 14 days being arrested on 29.04.2025. She has been implicated based on the disclosure statements of co-accused Prashant Majumdar that she had supplied one phone to him, which he handed over to one prisoner-Sultan, who is nowhere connected to her. She is otherwise a housewife and has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that her son Rachhpal Singh

 CRM-M-63280-2025 (O&M) 2 is serving sentence in jail. She is not involved in any other case. Challan was presented on 06.10.2025 and the charges are yet to be framed and total 46 prosecution witnesses have been cited.

3.

The custody certificate dated 16.11.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 6 months and 14 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by the co-accused Prashant Majumdar of having supplied the phone to him which was further given to a prisoner. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

  

     

  



      

 

  

      



        

                 

      !    !      

     

        

  "

  

    #

      

7.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

 CRM-M-63280-2025 (O&M) 3 (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of which she is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 17.11.2025 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No