Allowed

Kajal Rani v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2026CRM-M/12456/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail under Section 483 BNSS for a female pillion rider accused under Sections 21(C)/27 NDPS Act after recovery of 300 grams heroin. Citing prolonged incarceration, clean antecedents, completed investigation and unexamined witnesses, the Court relaxed Section 37 rigors and released her on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds to trial Court's satisfaction, with conditions.

Kajal Rani Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

222

¶4

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2026

Kajal Rani

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶11

Present : Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

¶14

This is first 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. 62 dated 28.07.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 21(C) [Section 27 added later on] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

¶15

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Harbhajan Singh’, who had reported that on 27.07.2025 at about 11.00 P.M on the basis of suspicion a two-wheeler was intercepted and from the occupants of above mentioned two wheeler 300 grams of ‘Heroin’ was recovered. As per above named police officer ‘Balwant Singh’ was driving the above mentioned

¶16

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 2

¶18

two-wheeler, and the petitioner was the pillion rider.

¶19

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 petitioner were completed and further investigation taken up.

¶20

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.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a female deserves a considerate view, and that she has clean antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was newly married, who was travelling as pillion rider on the scooter of her father, and she has already served incarceration for a period of nine months and twenty five days. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 21 prosecution witnesses not even a single witness has been examined so far, and therefore, apparently there is delay in trial which is in violation of right of speedy trial available to the petitioner.

¶23

The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel the quantity of recovered contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. According

¶24

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 3

¶26

to learned State counsel unless the twin conditions are complied with the petitioner should not be released on bail.

¶27

The record has been perused carefully.

¶28

Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to offences under the Act.

¶29

In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act.

¶30

In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case

¶31

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 4

¶33

of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

¶34

Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] would apply in such cases.

¶35

In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’ Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused.

¶36

The similar benefit has been given in another appeal, i.e. SLP

¶37

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 5

¶39

No.15699-2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal’, and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.

¶40

In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:-

¶41

a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months;

¶42

b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed;

¶43

c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and

¶44

d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.

¶45

In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.

¶46

Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long time.

¶47

If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

¶48

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of nine

¶49

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 6

¶51

months and twenty five days;

¶52

ii) that the petitioner being a female deserves a considerate view;

¶53

iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

¶54

iv) that she was a pillion rider of the vehicle and as per case set-out by the prosecution the polythene bag containing ‘Heroin’ was hanging on the handle of the motorcycle, thus nothing has been recovered on search of the person of petitioner;

¶55

v) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶56

vi) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of twenty one prosecution witnesses not even a single witness has been examined, so far;

¶57

vii) that due to delay in trial the fundamental right of speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner, is being violated. Thus, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act can be relaxed;

¶58

viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶59

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

¶60

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

¶61

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble

¶62

Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

¶63

“a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

¶64

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 7

¶66

innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

¶67

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to

¶68

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 8

¶70

think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

¶71

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

¶72

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶73

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

¶74

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶75

CRM-M No.12456 of 2026 (O&M) 9

¶76

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶77

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-

¶78

i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;

¶79

ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

¶80

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court.

¶81

It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶82

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

¶83

26.05.2026

¶84

Manoj Bhutani

¶85

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶86

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.05.27 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kajal Rani v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kajal Rani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh Alias Shinda Vs State of Punjab

Manish Vs State of Haryana

Sagar Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Inderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab