CRM-M-47093 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M-47093 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 Baby Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.125 dated 19.06.2025 registered under Section 22(b)/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 04.03.2025, ASI Rajwinder Singh, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended the petitioner, who was found in conscious possession of 40 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride USP 100 Mg CELCIDALE. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. DINESH BANSAL 2025.09.12 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-47093 of 2025 -2- He argued that recovery has already been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2025. The investigation in the case is complete and challan also stands presented. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping her behind the bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. However, he has not controverted the fact that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner, falls under the non-commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby she is a habitual offender. 5. This Court is sanguine of the fact that according to the proposition settled by the Apex Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”. 6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is DINESH BANSAL 2025.09.12 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-47093 of 2025 -3- held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 2½ months, investigation is complete; challan stands presented, and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining her in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. 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. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 10.09.2025 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2025.09.12 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh