Mandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

The petitioner i n carcerated in the FIR captioned a b ove had come up before this Cour t under Section 4 8 3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha S anhita, 2023, [BNSS] (439 Cr.P.C) , seeking regular b ail.

¶14

In para 23 of the bail application, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and al l egations are taken from the reply fil e d by the State. On 20.04.2021, base d on secret infor m ation, the Police seized 1 kg 10 grams of heroin from petitioner’ s possession. The I nvestigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements o f the NDPS Act, 1 9 85, and CrPC, 1973.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition e r has been falsely implicated in th e present FIR an d she is neither the owner nor th e driver of the alleged vehicle. O n instructions he fu rther submits that the petitioner sh a ll not indulge himself in the offenc e involving the co m mercial or intermediate quantity or t he offence which falls under Sectio n 19/24/27A of N D PS Act. He further submits that if t he petitioner involves himself in th e said offences, he has no objection if the State files ap p lication for cancellation of bail in al l FIRs under ND P S Act, pending against the petitioner. He further contends that further pre - trial incarceratio n would cause an irreversible injustic e to the petitioner and their family.

¶16

The State’s coun s el opposes bail and refers to the repl y .

¶17

Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

¶18

CRM-M-4179-202 5

¶19

The petitioner seeks bail on pre-trial custody of more t han two years and six months. REASONING:

¶20

The quantity all e gedly involved in this case is comme r cial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 o f the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner m ust satisfy the twin conditions put i n place by the Legislat u re under Section 37 of the NDPS Ac t .

¶21

Per the custody certificate dated 07.04.2025, the pet i tioner is in custody for 03 years, 11 months and 16 days i n this FIR.

¶22

The prolonged i ncarceration, generally militates ag a inst the most precious fundamenta l right guaranteed un d er Article 21 of the Constitution an d in such a situation, the conditiona l liberty must override the statutory embargo created under S ection 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

¶23

The petitioner i s entitled to bail based on Dheeraj K umar Shukla v. The State of Utta r Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6 690-2022], decided on 25 Jan 2023. Dheeraj Shukla would be attracte d when the three condi t ions are fulfilled,

¶24

(a). T h e custody of more than two years a n d six months and the delay was no t attributable to the accused.

¶25

(b). T h e trial is at an initial stage. (c) T h e petitioner is the first offender.

¶26

Considering the quantity involved and the pre-trial c ustody, Section 37 of the NDPS Ac t would not be attracted. Given this, the criminal antece d ents are also not a legal ground fo r denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 12. Given the penal p rovisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafaci e analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors p e culiar to this case, there would be n o justifiability further p re-trial incarceration at this stage, s u bject to the compliance of terms an d conditions mentione d in this order.

¶27

Without comme n ting on the case's merits, in the fac t s and circumstances peculiar to thi s case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner m akes a case for bail. This order shal l come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court' s official webpage. CONDITIONS:

¶28

Given above, pr o vided the petitioner is not required i n any other case, the petitioner shal l be released on bail i n the FIR captioned above subject to f urnishing bonds to the satisfaction o f

¶29

Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶30

CRM-M-4179-202 5

¶31

the concerned Cou r t and due to unavailability befor e any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/dut y Magistrate. Before a ccepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if th e accused fails to appe a r, such surety can produce the accus e d.

¶32

While furnishin g a personal bond, the petitioner s h all mention the following persona l identification details:

¶33

1.	AA DHAR number
2.	Pas atte con sport number (If available) and sting officer/court considers it appr siders the accused a flight risk. when the opriate or
3.	Mob ile number (If available)
4.	E-M ail id (If available)

¶34

This ord e r is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.

¶35

The peti t ioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before th e concerned Cour t (s) on all dates. The petitioner s h all not tamper with the evidence , influence, brow b eat, pressurize, induce, threaten, o r promise, directly or indirectly, an y witnesses, Polic e officials, or any other person acquai n ted with the facts and circumstance s of the case or di s suade them from disclosing such fact s to the Police or the Court.

¶36

Given th e background of allegations against t h e petitioner, it becomes paramount t o protect themem b ers of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would b e one of the prim a ry optionsuntil the filing of the clo s ure report or discharge, or acquittal . Consequently, i t would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [Thi s restriction is bei n g imposed based on the prepondera n ce of the evidence of probability an d not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonab l e doubt; and as such, it is not to b e construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the n a ture of the allegations and the othe r circumstances p e culiar to this case, the petitioner shal l surrender all weapons, firearms, an d ammunition, if a ny, along with the arms license to t h e concerned authority within fiftee n days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However , subject to the In d ian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner s hall be entitled to renew and reclai m them in case of a cquittal in this case, provided other w ise permissible under the concerne d rules. Restrictin g firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, an d society; it woul d also restrain the accused from influe n cing the witnesses and repeating th e offense.

¶37

The con d itions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to refor m and ensure the a ccused does not repeat the offense a nd also to block the menace of dru g

¶38

Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3

¶39

CRM-M-4179-202 5 abuse. In Moha m med Zubair v. State of NCT of D e lhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Wri t Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decid e d on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judg e bench of Hon’b l e Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Cour t must not only h ave a nexus to the purpose that t h ey seek to serve but must also b e proportional to t h e purpose of imposing them. The c o urts, while imposing bail condition s must balance th e liberty of the accused and the nec e ssity of a fair trial. While doing so , conditions that w ould result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”

¶40

In Md. T a jiur Rahaman v. The State of West B engal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SL P (Crl) 12225-202 4 , Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in P ara 7, “It goes without saying that i f the petitioner is f ound involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail grante d to him today wi l l liable to be withdrawn and the pet i tioner is bound to face the necessar y consequences.”

¶41

This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner

¶42

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation

¶43

of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail .

¶44

Any obs e rvation made hereinabove is neither a n expression of opinion on the case' s

¶45

merits nor shall t he trial Court advert to these comme n ts.

¶46

A certifi e d copy of this order would not be n eeded for furnishing bonds, and an y Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order a l ong with case status from the officia l web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verif y its authenticity, s uch an officer can also verify its au t henticity and may download and us e the downloaded c opy for attesting bonds.

¶47

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. A ll pending applications, if any, stan d disposed of.

¶48

28.04.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaki n g/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reporta b le: Yes/No

¶49

Renu Bala 2025.04.28 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4

Mandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasveer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Princepal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prabhdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prince Kalyan Alias Billu Vs State of Punjab

Melan Masih Mundri Vs State of Punjab

Bal Krishan Vs State of Punjab