Dismissed

Baljit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2024CRM-M/36809/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed bail petition before a female appellant charged with trafficking above threshold under NDPS Act, noting contraband recovered from her bag by male SI. Court held that since contraband was in bag and not on body, female search wasn't strictly needed, but rarity of heavy charge precluded bail.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; prayer under Section 439 CrPC dismissed.

Baljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-36809-2024 Date of Decision: December 11, 2024

¶3

Baljit Kaur …Pe11oner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶8

Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶10

By way of this pe��on filed under Sec�on 439 Cr.P.C., pe��oner prays for her release on regular bail in case FIR No.04 dated 16.01.2023 under Sec�on 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Sta�on Mehal Kalan, District Barnala.

¶11

This is her second pe��on. The earlier pe��on bearing No.CRM-M-27946-2023 (O&M) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-6).

¶12

Status report by way of an affidavit of Shri Shubeg Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mehal Kalan, District Barnala has been filed by respondent- State, which is taken on record.

¶13

As per the prosecu�on allega�ons, on 16.01.2023 police party headed by SI Sukhwinder Singh, SHO PS Mehal Kalan was present at T-point Chuhanke khurd, in the area of Village Sehjra in connec�on with patrolling and checking of the suspected persons, when secret informa�on was received against the pe��oner to the effect that she was habitual of selling the intoxica�ng tablets and that in case, raid is conducted she could be caught red handed. In�ma�on under Sec�on 42 of the NDPS Act was sent. As per the informa�on, the police party went to the disclosed place and found a lady keeping a transparent plas�c polythene bag, who tried to escape at the sight of the police party. SI Sukhwinder Singh with the help of L/Ct. Jaspreet Kaur apprehended the said lady, who disclosed her name as Sarita RaniBaljit Kaur i.e. the pe��oner. She was apprised of her legal right to be 2024.12.11 06:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶14

Sarita Rani 2024.12.11 06:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRM-M-36809-2024

- 2 -

2024:PHHC:165059

searched before a GazeDed Officer or a Magistrate, though the intoxica�ng tablets were visible in the transparent plas�c polythene bag in her right hand. The pe��oner reposed faith in SI Sukhwinder Singh. Then the search was conducted by SI Sukhwinder Singh, who found 550 loose tablets in the plas�c polythene kept by the pe��oner. Necessary recovery proceedings were conducted. On analysis by the FSL, the salt of the recovered tablets was found to be E�zolam and the total weight of the 550 tablets was found to be 77.7 gram, which is much above the commercial category which starts at the threshold of 2.5 grams.

¶19

Learned counsel for the pe��oner has drawn aDen�on towards Sec�on 50(4) of the NDPS Act, which mandates that no female shall be searched by anyone except any female. Learned counsel contends that the recovery memo (Annexure P-2) shows that it is SI Sukhwinder Singh, who himself had checked the polythene bag carried in the right hand of the apprehended pe��oner and this is the clear viola�on of Sec�on 50(4) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the pe��oner also contends that the pe��oner is in custody for the last almost 01 year and 11 months and so she being a woman, be allowed bail.

¶20

Strongly refu�ng the aforesaid conten�ons, learned State counsel has drawn aDen�on towards the status report by poin�ng out that the transparent polythene bag was in the lap of the pe��oner when it was taken in possession by SI Sukhwinder Singh and that the personal search of the pe��oner, was got conducted by SI Sukhwinder Singh through L/Ct. Jaspreet Kaur. It is submiDed that at the �me when SI Sukhwinder Singh introduced himself to the pe��oner, she was holding the polythene bag in her right hand and therefore, there is no viola�on of Sec�on 50(4) of NDPS Act. Learned State counsel has also drawn aDen�on towards the custody cer�ficate in order to contend that pe��oner is involved in 02 another cases of NDPS Act; besides one case of Excise Act.

¶21

Apart from above, learned State counsel also informs that out 09 witnesses cited by the prosecu�on, 04 have already been examined, 01 has been given up and only 04 are leG to be examined and next date fixed before the trial Court is 17.12.2024. Learned State counsel also informs that the Lady Constable – Jaspreet Kaur, who had conducted the personal search Sarita Raniof the pe��oner, has already been examined and has proved the personal 2024.12.11 06:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶22

Sarita Rani 2024.12.11 06:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRM-M-36809-2024

- 3 -

2024:PHHC:165059

search memo as Ex. PW10. Learned State counsel reiterates that as far as contraband is concerned, the same was recovered from a polythene bag carried by the pe��oner and not on her personal search. As such, there is no viola�on of Sec�on 50(4) of the NDPS Act.

¶27

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when recovery of the contraband was not effected pursuant to the personal search of the pe��oner, rather the same was effected from a poly bag carried by the pe��oner in the presence of a Lady Constable, prima facie, it was not necessary to conduct the search of such a poly bag by a lady police officer. This Court cannot ignore the fact that as per the allega�ons, 550 loose intoxica�ng tablets containing the salt of E�zolam with the weight of 77.7 grams, which is more than 31 �mes of threshold from which the commercial category starts, has been recovered from the pe��oner. As such, without commen�ng anything further on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the pe��oner.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

December 11, 2024	(DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita	JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking:	Yes/No
Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶30

Sarita Rani 2024.12.11 06:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Baljit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Husain Vs State of Punjab

Prince Bedi Vs Gursajan Bedi

Mohinder Kaur and Others Vs Jaswant Singh and Others

Gautam Kaushik Vs State of Haryana

Tarif Vs State of Haryana

Kulwant Singh Alias Np Vs State of Punjab