CRM-M-35559-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CRM-M-35559-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Gurmeet Kaur @ Gurmit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is the second petition seeking concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.150 dated 13.11.2025, registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran. 2. The prosecution case is that the FIR was registered on the basis of secret information alleging that co-accused Robindeep Singh @ Deepu was engaged in trafficking heroin. Acting upon the information, the police apprehended the said accused on 13.11.2025 and allegedly recovered 3 kgs 43 grams of heroin from his possession. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, during investigation, the co-accused made a disclosure statement alleging that the petitioner was assisting him in the sale of heroin MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35559-2026 (O&M) -2- and that sale proceeds were being deposited in her bank account. On the strength of the said disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. The petitioner had earlier approached the Sessions Court and thereafter this Court by filing a petition bearing CRM-M-73539-2025, wherein her prayer for anticipatory bail was declined. The present is a second petition seeking the same relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that she is a housewife with clean antecedents and was not named in the FIR. It is argued that her implication rests solely upon the disclosure statement of the co- accused, which has no evidentiary value in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, she has no connection with the alleged contraband or the main accused and has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the challan has not yet been presented and the revision petition filed by the main accused is pending before this Court. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has submitted that the present is a second anticipatory bail petition after dismissal of the earlier petition and no substantial change in circumstances has been shown so as to justify reconsideration. The grounds raised in the present petition have already been pleaded by the petitioner in her first petition, which was dismissed by this MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35559-2026 (O&M) -3- Court. It is further argued that the allegations are grave, investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy relating to the trafficking of commercial quantity of heroin. Though she was not named in the FIR, she came to be nominated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, wherein a specific role has been attributed to her regarding sale of contraband and receipt of sale proceeds. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's earlier prayer for anticipatory bail in the same FIR already stands rejected by this Court. The present being a successive petition, the petitioner was required to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or the emergence of fresh material rendering the earlier order obsolete. However, no such subsequent development has been brought on record. The mere reiteration of the grounds already urged cannot furnish a valid basis for entertaining a second anticipatory bail petition. Considering the nature of the allegations, the recovery of commercial quantity from the co-accused, the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy, the requirements of a fair investigation and the absence of any material change since dismissal of the earlier petition, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35559-2026 (O&M) -4- 6. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 06.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document