CRM-M-58404- IN THE H (223) SAVITA GARG STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. G Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 21( Act, 1985 (for sho 2. As pe and Khushmandar found to be in con Alprazolam 0.5 m arrested. During t Singh and the pre -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ARG Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate an Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for the pe Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.10 21(C), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drug or short “NDPS”) at Police Station Du As per the allegations, on 12/13.08.2 andar Singh @ Mandar were apprehe in conscious possession of 21,000 an 0.5 mg and drug money of Rs.15 uring the course of investigation, the a he present petitioner were nominated JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-58404-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
cate and r the petitioner Punjab by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 103 dated 13.08.2024 registered Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Dugri, District Ludhiana. 3.08.2024, the accused Jasjot Singh pprehended by Police and they were 00 and 9,000 intoxicating tablets of Rs.15,050/-. They were formally , the accused-Deepak Garg, Sandeep inated as additional accused on the M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered nces ingh were ts of ally deep n the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58404- basis of the discl Khushmandar Sin intoxicating tablet The present petitio and recovery of 1 The accused Sand namely Vikash Ha accused. It was petitioner had con neighbourer Rekha suffered disclosu Investigation qua h 3. It is a falsely implicated officials of CIA S intervening night recovery has been instance. The sto neighbour’s house effected even from a period of 10 ho petition before th subsequently by investigation stand -2025 (O&M) 2 disclosure statements recorded by ar Singh @ Mandar to the effect tablets from the accused Deepak Ga etitioner and accused Deepak Garg y of 1050 tablets of Alprazolam was Sandeep Singh was also arrested sub ash Harish @ Vicky and Rahul Hans t was found during the course of ad concealed a packet of intoxicating Rekha Rani. The petitioner was arres sclosure statement admitting her n qua her stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for th icated in this case. In fact, she is a CIA Staff. Her son had been taken night of 12/13.08.2024 by the officia s been planted in this case. No reco he story that she had concealed som house has not been substantiated a n from the neighbourhood. Even she 10 hours by the Police officials and ore this Court. Out of vendetta, sh by the Police officials. She is n stands concluded. Trial will take d by the accused Jasjot Singh and effect that they used to purchase ak Garg and the present petitioner. Garg were arrested on the same day m was effected from Deepak Garg. ed subsequently. Two more persons ns @ Rahul were nominated as e of further investigation that the icating tablet at the residence of her s arrested on 23.07.2025 and she too her involvement in the crime. l for the petitioner that she has been e is a victim at the hands of Police taken into illegal detention on the officials of CIA, Ludhiana. A false ecovery has been effected at her ed some intoxicating tablets at her ated as such no recovery has been n she had been illegally detained for s and was constrained to file a writ she was implicated as accused e is in custody since long. The take considerable time to conclude. and hase oner. day arg. rsons d as t the f her e too rime. been olice the false t her t her been d for writ used The lude. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58404- Her antecedents ar purpose. It is, thus 4. Per co actively involved the co-accused. T chances of her co rigors of Section 3 the petition does n 5. The p intoxicating tablet recovery has been of investigation. Tofan Singh Vs. Hon’ble Apex Co NDPS Act, are in material. While th will be tested dur ignored that no r since 23.07.2025. petitioner either w the co-accused in completed. There Keeping in view considered opinio -2025 (O&M) 3 ents are clean. Her further incarcerati is, thus, argued that she deserve to be r Per contra, learned State counsel has olved in sale of intoxicating tablets in sed. The allegations against her are committing similar offences, if e ction 37 of NDPS are attracted qua he does not deserve to be allowed. The petitioner is alleged to be invol tablets alongwith her son, who was s been effected from her. She was no tion. On disclosure statements alleged Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) ex Court that the disclosure statemen are inadmissible in evidence unless hile the veracity of the disclosure st ed during the course of trial, howev no recovery was ever effected from h .2025. There is nothing on record, ither with the subject crime or to sho sed in any manner at the relevant There are bleak chances of conclusion view the aforesaid facts and circum opinion that no useful purpose wou rceration would not serve any useful to be released on bail. el has argued that the petitioner was lets in connivance with her son and er are serious in nature. There are s, if extended benefit of bail. The qua her. It is, therefore, stressed that involved in the business of sale of o was running a chemist shop. No as nominated at a subsequent stage allegedly suffered by co-accused. In 21) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by atements made under Section 67 of unless corroborated by independent ure statement against the petitioner however, at this stage, it cannot be rom her. The petitioner is in custody ecord, at this stage, to connect the to show that he was connected with evant time. Investigation has been lusion of the trial in the near future. circumstances, this Court is of the e would be served by keeping the seful was and e are The that le of No stage In d by 7 of dent ioner t be tody t the with been ture. f the the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58404- petitioner in custo facts but without m the same prejudic petitioner is ordere surety bonds to Magistrate/Duty M 6. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 7. Since any, is rendered in 05.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 4 custody anymore. Taking into cons thout meaning to make any comments rejudice the trial in any manner, the ordered to be released on bail, subject s to the satisfaction of the learne uty Magistrate concerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail.
Since the main petition has been all infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

o consideration the above discussed ments on the merits of the case lest er, the petition is allowed and the ubject to his furnishing personal and learned trial Court/Chief Judicial y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ssed lest the l and icial t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.