CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243 CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 14.07.2026 Bhinder Kaur @Baljinder Kaur ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. . ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.95 dated 27.03.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’, Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa. 2. The abovementioned FIR has come into being at the instance of ‘Gurmail Kaur’, who is mother of the deceased ‘Amarpal Singh @Gaggi’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It has been stated by the above-named complainant that her neighbour, ‘Jarnail Singh’ along with his family members, including his wife ‘Amarjit Kaur’, his sons ‘Gurdeep Singh @Gaggu’ and ‘Bawa Singh @Moongi’ and his daughter ‘Bhinder Kaur @Baljinder Kaur’ (the petitioner herein) were actively involved in the illicit sale and trade of contraband and narcotics in the area. According to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 2 complainant, despite multiple warnings and requests by the complainant to the accused family, to refrain from supplying drugs to her son, they continued to do so. 3. According to complainant, on 26.03.2026 at about 05:00-06:00 pm, the deceased visited the house of ‘Jarnail Singh’ and on his return, the deceased complained of severe uneasiness and disclosed to his mother that the petitioner along with the co-accused family members, had administered him an injection of Heroin. As per complainant, the deceased subsequently went to sleep under the influence of the said narcotic substance and was found dead next morning. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5. The learned State Counsel has filed status report as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three months, and that nothing incriminating has been recovered from her possession. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that the entire story developed by the prosecution is based upon the statement of complainant, who did not witness the alleged sale of drugs by the petitioner to the deceased. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 3 8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that contents of the FIR shows that the complainant has alleged that in the past also, the petitioner and her family members had supplied the drugs, but her son and she had asked them to refrain from supplying the drugs to her son. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that had it been so, it was for the complainant to report the matter to the police, but she never reported the matter to the police regarding sale of drugs to her son by the petitioner in the past. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner with regard to sale of drugs to the son of the complainant. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the FIR has been promptly filed and in the FIR itself, specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. 10. In addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also contended that in the present case, statements of material witnesses are yet to be recorded and if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence. 11. The record has been perused carefully. 12. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 4 i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three months and thirteen days; ii. that the petitioner, being female, deserves a considerate view; iii. that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv. that no narcotic substance has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; v. that the investigation in this case is already complete. Thus, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii. that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 13. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 5 bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 14. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 6 15. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 16. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 17. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32371-2026 (O&M) 7 satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document