CRM-M-28615-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-28615-2026 Decided on :02.09.2026 Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. S.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Asst. A.G., Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present Second petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 129 dated 30.05.2025, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda. First petition I.e CRM-M-41711-2025 filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2026 by recording as under: “1. xxxx 2. As per the case of the prosecution, 40 Etizolam tablets have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who is in custody for the last about 09 months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a woman and there exists a beneficial provision in law, i.e., Section 480(1) of the BNSS, 2023, which reflects RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28615-2026 2 the legislative intent that a person who is a child, woman, sick or infirm should not be kept in custody for an unduly long period. It is, therefore, prayed that the concession of regular bail be granted on sympathetic grounds. 4. Heard. 5. After arguing for some time, and considering that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for about 09 months, learned counsel submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action after completion of one year period inside jail. 6. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as sought and recorded hereabove.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2026, the petitioner has now undergone incarceration for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 01 day. It is further submitted that the charges were framed on 31.10.2025 and, out of total of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined till date. Thus, trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Thus, prays for grant of regular bail 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail, particularly in view of her antecedents. It is submitted that two other criminal cases are also registered against the petitioner, details whereof are as under: RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28615-2026 3 i) FIR No. 44 dated 14.03.2019, registered under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda, in which the petitioner is presently on bail; and ii) FIR No.114 dated 10.07.2024, registered under Sections 21B/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Canal, Colony, in which petitioner is presently on bail. Learned State counsel submits that the involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases disentitles her from the concession of regular bail, particularly when the present case pertains to an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of 40 Etizolam tablets from the possession of the petitioner is a serious matter and that the case is required to be considered keeping in view the statutory provisions governing the grant of bail under the NDPS Act. Thus, prays for dismissal of same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The question of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Though the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, it is not disputed that she has not been convicted in any of those cases till date. Mere registration of criminal cases, in the absence of conviction, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive proof of guilt or constitute the sole basis for denying the concession of bail. RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28615-2026 4 6. Petitioner is in custody for a period of last 01 year, 03 months and 01 day. Charges were framed on 31.10.2025 and, out of a total of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. Thus, trial is still at an initial stage and is likely to take considerable time. The continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period, when the trial is progressing slowly, assumes significance in the backdrop of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. There would be no satisfactory answer to a situation where an accused, after remaining behind bars for several years, is ultimately acquitted at the conclusion of the trial. The deprivation of liberty for an extended period, if ultimately found to be unwarranted, may cause consequences which cannot adequately be remedied by any subsequent order. 7. The object and spirit of the criminal justice system is not merely to arrest a person against whom an allegation of commission of an offence has been made. The State, through the prosecuting agency, also carries the corresponding responsibility of conducting the prosecution with due diligence and ensuring that the proceedings are brought to their logical conclusion without unnecessary delay. An accused cannot be made to suffer incarceration indefinitely on account of delay in the progress of the trial, particularly when such delay is not attributable to the accused. 8. In view of the totality of the circumstances, including the period of incarceration already undergone, the stage of the trial, the fact that only 03 out of 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28615-2026 5 fact that the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the other cases registered against her, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 10. Petition stands disposed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document