CRM-M No.39103 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CRM-M No.39103 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Sandeep Kaur @ Sherni @ Krishna Rani ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Ms. Statpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. (through hybrid mode). Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.30 dated 06.03.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22, 29, 61 & 85 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Onkar Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 06.03.2025 when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, he spotted a lady carrying black coloured polythene bag in her hand. As per above named police officer the moment the above mentioned lady noticed the presence of police party on MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.39103 of 2026 (O&M) 2 her way ahead, she threw the above mentioned packet on road side and tried to run away, but she was over powered and on checking it was found that in the plastic bag she was carrying 45 intoxicating tablets of ‘Etizolam’. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of accused were completed and further investigation taken-up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and eighteen days. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of 9 prosecution witnesses only, one witness has been examined, so far, and that right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated in the present case. On the ground of prolonged incarceration the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.39103 of 2026 (O&M) 3 should be relaxed. 8. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Purandar Yadav V/s State of Chhattisgarh’ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.34992 of 2026, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that irrespective of the fact that there are allegations against the petitioner for the recovery of ‘commercial quantity’ of contraband, due to delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. 9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. While relying upon the principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘State of Punjab V/s Balraj Singh @Billa’ 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, it has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case the allegations against the petitioner are that she was found in possession of 7.29 grams of intoxicating tablets, i.e. ‘Etizolam’ whereas threshold fixed for commercial quantity of above mentioned contraband is 2.5 grams. As per learned State counsel, since the quantity of contraband found in possession of petitioner was commercial quantity, without satisfying the twin conditions, enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that this plea of the petitioner is true that she is in custody for a period of more than one year and eighteen days, but the custody certificate, placed on record by the learned State counsel, shows MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.39103 of 2026 (O&M) 4 that in addition to present case the petitioner is facing prosecution in four other cases, for the offences under NDPS Act. It is also relevant to mention here that the quantity of contraband found in possession of petitioner is huge quantity that is much above the threshold fixed for commercial quantity. Thus, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that petitioner qualifies the above mentioned twin conditions. 12. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 13. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document