Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4734 (PNJ)

JASPAL KAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/72239/2025 · 2026-03-05

Mandeep Pannu

Public Interest Litigationbody2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-72239- 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jaspal Kaur State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate Mr. Apurav Kamboj, Advocate Mr. Harshdeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 684 dated 16.11.2023, NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection with recovery. It is submitted that neither the petitioner was apprehended at the spot nor any contraband has been recovered from her possession. The name of the petitioner has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made b co-accused while in police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that the recovery of 05 grams and 65 milligrams of heroin was effected from the co-accused and the same is only marginally above the small quantity and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate Mr. Apurav Kamboj, Advocate Mr. Harshdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 684 dated 16.11.2023, registered under Sections 21(b), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection with recovery. It is submitted that neither the petitioner was apprehended at the spot nor any contraband has been recovered from her possession. The name of the petitioner has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made b accused while in police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that the recovery of 05 grams and 65 milligrams of heroin was effected accused and the same is only marginally above the small quantity and g has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-72239-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. This is the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in registered under Sections 21(b), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection with the alleged recovery. It is submitted that neither the petitioner was apprehended at the spot nor any contraband has been recovered from her possession. The name of the petitioner has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused while in police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that the recovery of 05 grams and 65 milligrams of heroin was effected accused and the same is only marginally above the small quantity and g has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the This is the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in registered under Sections 21(b), 61 and 85 of the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has the alleged recovery. It is submitted that neither the petitioner was apprehended at the spot nor any contraband has been recovered from her possession. The name of the petitioner y the accused while in police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that the recovery of 05 grams and 65 milligrams of heroin was effected accused and the same is only marginally above the small quantity and g has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72239- petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition seeking anticipatory bail and was granted interim protection with a direction to join the investigation, which dire investigation. However, the said petition was later disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and seek regular bail. It is further contended that the petitioner merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co being any independent material to connect her with the alleged offence. It is thus prayed that the petitioner be granted 3. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that the petitioner had this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the said petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a specific direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within 15 and move an application for regular bail, and in the meantime the arrest of the petitioner was ordered to remain stayed. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate Bench and has failed to surrender before the trial Court within the stipulated period. It is thus contended that instead of complying with the earlier order, the petitioner has chosen to file the present second petition seeking the same relief of anticipatory bail, which is not permissible in law, and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the petitioner had earlie -2025 (O&M) petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition seeking anticipatory bail and was granted interim protection with a direction to join the investigation, which direction was duly complied with by her and she joined the investigation. However, the said petition was later disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and seek regular bail. It is further contended that the petitioner is a lady and has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co being any independent material to connect her with the alleged offence. It is thus prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that the petitioner had this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the said petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a specific direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within 15 and move an application for regular bail, and in the meantime the arrest of the petitioner was ordered to remain stayed. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate nd has failed to surrender before the trial Court within the stipulated period. It is thus contended that instead of complying with the earlier order, the petitioner has chosen to file the present second petition seeking the same relief of l, which is not permissible in law, and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a -2- petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition seeking anticipatory bail and was granted interim protection with a direction to join the ction was duly complied with by her and she joined the investigation. However, the said petition was later disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and seek regular bail. It is further is a lady and has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused without there being any independent material to connect her with the alleged offence. It is thus the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the said petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a specific direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within 15 days and move an application for regular bail, and in the meantime the arrest of the petitioner was ordered to remain stayed. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate nd has failed to surrender before the trial Court within the stipulated period. It is thus contended that instead of complying with the earlier order, the petitioner has chosen to file the present second petition seeking the same relief of l, which is not permissible in law, and therefore the present petition maintainability. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, r approached this Court by filing a petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition seeking anticipatory bail and was granted interim protection with a direction to join the ction was duly complied with by her and she joined the investigation. However, the said petition was later disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and seek regular bail. It is further is a lady and has been implicated in the present case accused without there being any independent material to connect her with the alleged offence. It is thus Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the facts and earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the said petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a specific days and move an application for regular bail, and in the meantime the arrest of the petitioner was ordered to remain stayed. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate nd has failed to surrender before the trial Court within the stipulated period. It is thus contended that instead of complying with the earlier order, the petitioner has chosen to file the present second petition seeking the same relief of l, which is not permissible in law, and therefore the present petition After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, r approached this Court by filing a TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72239- petition seeking anticipatory bail and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within a peri application for regular bail. 5. 5. The record further reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate Bench. No plausible or valid explanation has been put forth by the petitione order. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the earlier order of this Court by filing a second anticipatory bail application seeking the same relief. Consequently, this Court is of the con petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed. 7. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. 8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 05, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) petition seeking anticipatory bail and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within a peri application for regular bail. The record further reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate Bench. No plausible or valid explanation has been put forth by the petitione order. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the earlier order of this Court by filing a second anticipatory bail application seeking the same relief. Consequently, this Court is of the con petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- petition seeking anticipatory bail and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days and move an The record further reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate Bench. No plausible or valid explanation has been put forth by the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the earlier order of this Court by filing a second anticipatory bail application seeking the same relief. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Speaking : Yes/No petition seeking anticipatory bail and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a direction to the petitioner od of 15 days and move an The record further reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid directions issued by the coordinate Bench. No plausible or valid compliance of the said order. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the earlier order of this Court by filing a second anticipatory bail application seeking sidered view that the present Accordingly, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document