Dismissed¶23

Anjana Devi Alias Anju v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2025CRM-M/16476/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused — CRM-M-16476-2025, Anjana Devi @ Anju v. State of Punjab, P&H HC (Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.), 07.07.2025: S.483 BNSS bail plea in FIR 166/2023, Ss.22 & 29 NDPS, PS Garshankar, Hoshiarpur; nomination via co-accused disclosure statement, no recovery from petitioner on 24.09.2023 arrest; custody certificate showed multiple NDPS cases and two convictions; prima facie habitual offender; misuse of bail concession; trial at fag end (two witnesses left, next date 24.07.2025); petition dismissed; observations not on merits.

What did the court decide?

In the facts and circumstances (including the petitioner's prima facie status as a habitual offender who misused earlier bail concessions and the trial being at its fag end), the Court did not deem it fit to admit the petitioner to bail and dismissed the petition. ¶23

Anjana Devi Alias Anju Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Anjana Devi @ Anju — allegedly implicated only on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement with no recovery effected from her — is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.166 dated 21.09.2023 under Sections 22, 29 NDPS Act.

¶13

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On a bare perusal of the custody certificate placed on record, the petitioner prima facie comes across as a habitual offender.

¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioner had been extended the concession of bail in the other cases registered against her under the NDPS Act.ratio¶20
The petitioner had misused the concession of bail by getting involved in another case under the NDPS Act.ratio¶23
Anything observed in the order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., oral order dated 07.07.2025 in CRM-M-16476-2025) dismissed the application of Anjana Devi @ Anju for bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.166 dated 21.09.2023, PS Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 22, 29 NDPS Act. Although the petitioner was allegedly implicated only through a co-accused's disclosure statement (260 grams Alprazolam recovered from the co-accused) and no contraband was recovered from her on arrest on 24.09.2023, the State's custody certificate showed her involvement in a number of NDPS cases with convictions in two of them. The Court found her prima facie a habitual offender who, despite being granted bail in other NDPS cases, had misused the concession by getting involved in another NDPS case; with the trial at its fag end (only two prosecution witnesses left, next hearing 24.07.2025), bail was declined and the petition dismissed. It was expressly clarified that nothing observed would be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

251

¶3

CRM-M-16476-2025 Date of decision: 07.07.2025

Anjana Devi @ Anju

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶9

Present : Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Rajesh Kumar.

¶11

¶12

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.166 dated 21.09.2023 under Sections 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure statement of co-accused from whom a recovery of 260 grams of Alprazolam was purportedly effected. Learned counsel submits that the disclosure statement, on the basis of which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused, holds little evidentiary value and, therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail moreso when the trial has not concluded yet despite the challan having

¶15

VINAY 2025.07.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

CRM-M-16476-2025

¶17

been presented way back on 29.03.2024. It has also been submitted that when the petitioner was arrested on 24.09.2023, no recovery of any contraband much less Alprazolam was effected from her which further lends credence to her false implication in the present case.

¶18

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned State counsel that no doubt no recovery of any contraband was made from the petitioner after she was named as an accused in the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused and no recovery of any contraband was also effected from her, however, a perusal of the custody certificate clearly reveals that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases under the NDPS Act; she stands convicted in two cases under the NDPS Act. Still further, on instructions, learned State counsel has submitted that the trial is nearing conclusion with only two prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined, who in all likelihood would be examined on the next date of hearing i.e. 24.07.2025.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶20

Prima facie , the petitioner does come across as a habitual offender as is evident from a bare perusal of her custody certificate which has been placed on record today. It also transpires that despite being having been extended the concession of bail in the other cases registered against her under the NDPS Act, the petitioner had prima

¶21

VINAY 2025.07.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶22

CRM-M-16476-2025

¶23

facie misused the concession of bail by getting involved in another case under the NDPS Act. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to admit the petitioner to bail moreso when the trial is at its fag end. The instant petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶24

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶25

07.07.2025 Vinay		(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶26

VINAY 2025.07.08 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Anjana Devi Alias Anju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Devi Alias Anju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Vs State of Haryana

Balraj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurpinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dilbagh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Swarnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs State of Haryana