CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 222 Dilpreet Kaur State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 2 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘N of Arms Act 2. accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of weapons/cartridges as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co and Nandini. 3. has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further -19310-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dilpreet Kaur V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 23.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.008 offences punishable under Sections 21-C and 25 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘N of Arms Act, at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 4.863 kilograms of heroin and /cartridges in large quantity. The petitioner is stated to be nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co and Nandini. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19310-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya a, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 06.01.2026, registered for the C and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 25(8) Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that she is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act/Arms Act 4.863 kilograms of heroin and . The petitioner is stated to be nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Abhiraj Singh for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya a, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to , registered for the of the Narcotic Drugs and and Section 25(8) he is an /Arms Act 4.863 kilograms of heroin and . The petitioner is stated to be nominated accused Abhiraj Singh petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- iterated that the petitioner was n accusation made against the petitioner are vague and unspecific to learned counsel, no recovery whatsoever of any contraband arms/cartridges petitioner nor from the the petitioner Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus suffers from inherent defects. entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and cannot form the basis of entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises. been further contended that there is no independent corroborative material on record at the instance of the allegations. Furthermore, the the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability fastened upon the petitioner. in custody since 08.01.2026 and of custody considerable time to conclude has been examined investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if strength of these submission -19310-2026 iterated that the petitioner was not named in the initi accusation made against the petitioner are vague and unspecific to learned counsel, no recovery whatsoever of any contraband /cartridges has been effected from the petitioner nor from the personal search, house, vehicle the petitioner, which completely demolishe Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the disclosure statement of accused while in police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence d cannot form the basis of her continued incarceration. entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises. been further contended that there is no independent corroborative material on record at the instance of the petitioner to substantiate the prosecution allegations. Furthermore, the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability fastened upon the petitioner. It has been further iterated that the in custody since 08.01.2026 and has already undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, able time to conclude as out of 28 prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined. Moreover, the petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if she is granted the concession of regular bail. strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for. 2 named in the initial FIR and even accusation made against the petitioner are vague and unspecific. According to learned counsel, no recovery whatsoever of any contraband has been effected from the conscious possession of the rsonal search, house, vehicle nor at the instance of which completely demolishes the case of the prosecution Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case Learned counsel has further contended that the entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the disclosure statement of , which is inadmissible in evidence continued incarceration. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises. It has been further contended that there is no independent corroborative material petitioner to substantiate the prosecution mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be It has been further iterated that the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period According to learned counsel, the trial is likely to take a as out of 28 prosecution witnesses cited, none petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or granted the concession of regular bail. On the , the grant of regular bail is entreated for. the . According or of the or at the instance of the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS , the prosecution case that the entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the disclosure statement of , which is inadmissible in evidence Furthermore, the It has been further contended that there is no independent corroborative material petitioner to substantiate the prosecution mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of Learned thereof cannot be petitioner is has already undergone a substantial period the trial is likely to take a as out of 28 prosecution witnesses cited, none petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or On the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 4. by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejecte on this score alone. does not dilute her culpability particularly when the role attributed to her is of supply and facilitation. According to learned counsel, the implication of the petitioner is n accused but is duly supported by recovery effected during the course of investigation and other incriminating material collected by the investigating agency. In case, the petitioner is released on bail she may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. hand is prayed for. 5. book as also the record produced before me. 6. petitioner. As per the prosecution, heavy quantity of heroin i.e. 4.863 Kgs and weapons/cartridges have been recovered and ther allegations against the petitioner allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accentuating or exception circumstances have been made out which may compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband -19310-2026 Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejecte on this score alone. Furthermore, the absence of recovery from the petitioner does not dilute her culpability particularly when the role attributed to her is of supply and facilitation. According to learned counsel, the implication of the petitioner is not based merely on the disclosure statement of the co accused but is duly supported by recovery effected during the course of investigation and other incriminating material collected by the investigating In case, the petitioner is released on bail he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and pe book as also the record produced before me. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution, heavy quantity of heroin i.e. 4.863 Kgs and weapons/cartridges have been recovered and ther allegations against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accentuating or exception circumstances have been made out which may compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband 3 , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petition in hand does not meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejecte Furthermore, the absence of recovery from the petitioner does not dilute her culpability particularly when the role attributed to her is of supply and facilitation. According to learned counsel, the implication of ot based merely on the disclosure statement of the co accused but is duly supported by recovery effected during the course of investigation and other incriminating material collected by the investigating In case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition in I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper book as also the record produced before me. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution, heavy quantity of heroin i.e. 4.863 Kgs and weapons/cartridges have been recovered and there are specific In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accentuating or exception circumstances have been made out which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband and weapons. The , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. petition in hand does not meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected Furthermore, the absence of recovery from the petitioner does not dilute her culpability particularly when the role attributed to her is of supply and facilitation. According to learned counsel, the implication of ot based merely on the disclosure statement of the co- accused but is duly supported by recovery effected during the course of investigation and other incriminating material collected by the investigating , there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition in rused the paper- Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution, heavy quantity of heroin i.e. 4.863 Kgs e are specific In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accentuating or exceptional constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light . The AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Court cannot accept the plea based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. 7. investigation was carried out and challan 04.07.2026 examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth before the petitioner to meet with th mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/ India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of 2025 and State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5020/2026 7.1. period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner contraband regular bail as well. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora = 2026 INSC 411 Singh @ Billa = 2026 INSC 618. 8. case in hand; commercial in nature, likelihood of the petitioner going -19310-2026 Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan qua 04.07.2026. Out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth before this Court, no cause nay plausible cause is made out in favour of the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/ India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5020/2026. Furthermore, the petitioner is in custody since period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner contraband/firearm(s) recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as well. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the udgment(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora = 2026 INSC 411 Singh @ Billa = 2026 INSC 618. Hence, keeping in view the entirety of the factual case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being commercial in nature, likelihood of the petitioner going 4 of the false implication of the petitioner merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrested on 08.01.2026 whereinafter qua the petitioner was presented on cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought plausible cause is made out in favour of e rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Union of India versus Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025; Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to Furthermore, the petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2026. The period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner vis.-a-vis., the quantity of recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as well. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the udgment(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora = 2026 INSC 411 and State of Punjab vs. Balraj Hence, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being commercial in nature, likelihood of the petitioner going to abscond from the merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR as the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. whereinafter the petitioner was presented on cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought plausible cause is made out in favour of which is mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) Union of India versus Namdeo Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to . The the quantity of recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as well. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the State of Punjab vs. State of Punjab vs. Balraj of the especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being abscond from the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- process of justice & also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application July 22, 202 Ajay -19310-2026 process of justice & also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 5 process of justice & also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence; the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous , if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No process of justice & also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence; the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document