IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (210) CRM-M-24132-2026 Decided on : 08.07.2026 Uploaded on : 08.07.2026 Balraj Kaur ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Damini Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner (Through V.C.). Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab. ***** Sumeet Goel (Oral): 1. Apprehending her arrest in FIR No.85 dated 07.04.2026 registered for offences punishable under Section 18 (Section 29 added later on) of NDPS Act at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre- arrest bail. 2. On 01.05.2026, the following order was passed: “Apprehending her arrest in FIR No.85 dated 07.04.2026 registered for offences punishable under Section 18 (Section 29 added later on) of NDPS Act at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is sought to be implicated into the FIR in question solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused from whom the contraband in question has been NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.08 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-24132-2026 P a g e | 2 allegedly recovered & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vijay Singh versus The State of Haryana’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1266/2023, ‘State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr’ 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592, ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 29 and ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.9190/2025. Notice of motion. On the strength of advance notice; Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab. Adjourned to 25.05.2026. State is at liberty to file reply, if so required. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 06.05.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to her furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. She shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” 3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and she is not required for custodial interrogation. 4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and she being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 01.05.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.08 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-24132-2026 P a g e | 3 of Punjab’ and recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 01.05.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 6. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 7. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause. 8. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.08 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh