Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
Pardeep Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR
No.11 dated 17.01.2024 registered under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved by the police as
she failed to fulfill demand of illegal gratification of the police. In
fact, the petitioner had given birth to her second child on 09.12.2023
and the present case was lodged on 17.01.2024. Thus, it was highly
improbable that a lady would get involved in a drug case after a
period of 38 days from the date of delivery of her child. Still further,
the police had wrongly planted the recovery of 800 tablets of
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
tramwell and 03 grams of heroin on the petitioner and the petition is
liable to be allowed by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed a status
report by way of an affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sub-Division Sunam, District Sangrur and the same is taken on
record.
4. Learned State counsel has relied upon paragraphs 2 and 3
of the status report, which have been reproduced below:-
“2 That pursuant to the said order, it is submitted that
the brief facts of case/FIR No. 11 dated 17.01.2024 u/s
21, 22, 29 NDPS Act, P.S., City Sunam are that on
17.01.2024 a police party headed by A.S.I. Sat Parkash
763/SGR P.S. City Sunam in connection with patrolling
and checking of suspected persons, was present at
Peeran Wala Gate, Sunam, at about 3:30 PM, the secret
informer gave him information that Yograj Singh @
Yoga son of Kala Singh resident of Stadium Road, Indra
Basti Sunam, who brings the Heroin/chitta and
intoxicant tablets at cheaper rates and used to sell the
same in area of Sunam in connivance with his wife
Pardeep Kaur. Even today, Pardeep Kaur wife of Yograj
Singh @ Yoga above said is coming to Nilowal at minor
canal bridge in the area of Sunam for selling the
heroin/chitta and intoxicant tablets to her customers
brought by her husband Yograj Singh @ Yoga. If a raid
is conducted at minor drainage bridge on Nilowal Road,
Sunam, then Pardeep Kaur can be apprehended along
with heroin/chitta and intoxicant tablets. The2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
information is solid and reliable. Yograj Singh @ Yoga
by bringing heroin/chitta and intoxicant tablets from
outside and hanging over the same further to his wife
Pardeep Kaur and Pardeep Kaur by selling the same
have committed offence under sections 21, 22, 29/61/85
NDPS Act. Therefore, ASI Sat Parkash by sending a ruqa
to the police station got registered the present FIR
against Yograj Singh @ Yoga and Pardeep Kaur. ASI Sat
Parkash prepared report u/s 42 NDPS Act and sent to
the Senior Officers.
3.That during the investigation, ASI Sat Parkash
alongwith police party reached near canal bridge at
Nilowal road, Sunam and tried to get some independent
witness joined the investigation, but no one was found
available. Then a lady was seen coming from the Sunam
side through canal pavement holding a polythene
envelope in her right hand, who got perplexed and threw
the polythene envelope on the pavement of canal and
tried turn back, however, ASI Sat Parkash apprehended
that lady with the help of lady Constable Kiranjit Kaur
No.1548/SGR and other co-officials and asked about her
name and address, who disclosed her name as Pardeep
Kaur wife of Yograj Singh @ Yoga son of Kala Singh,
resident of Stadium road, Indra Basti, Sunam. Due to the
open mouth of the envelope, some strips of intoxicant
tablets and also the transparent envelope containing
heroin/chitta fell on the ground and the intoxicant tablets
were clearly visible. On counting, 80 strips of intoxicant
tablets, 10 tablets in each strip, total 800 tablets, marka
Tramadol Prolonged-Release tablets IP TRAMWEL
SR-100 were recovered. Batch number on each strip has3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -4-
been found erased. From the transparent lifafi,
heroin/chitta was recovered and on weghment it came to
be 3 grams heroin/ chitta. Parcels of recovered 800
intoxicant tablets and 3 gram heroin were prepared and
sealed by ASI Sat Parkash with his seal SP and specimen
of seals were prepared separately”.
5. The learned State counsel has vehemently argued that on
getting the secret information, the petitioner was arrested and 800
tablets were recovered from her and as per the report dated
20.02.2024 received from the FSL, the following ingredients were
found in the tablets:-
Envelope No.1: was containing Eight hundred (800) white
coloured tablets packed in eighty (80) strips, each strip
was lebelled as ‘TRAMWEL SR 100 (Tramadol Prolonged
Release Tablets IP) Mfd. by Pure and Cure Healthcare
Pvt. Ltd.
Average weight = 381 mg/tablet.
Envelope No.2: was containing Three (3) grams of brown
coloured lumpy material packed in a plastic container
(Dabbi)Tramadol Found present in the tablets
Hydrochloride contained in the envelope
No.1.
Diacetylmorphine Found present in the
contents of the envelope
No.2.
Quantity of 44.25%
Diacetylmorphine
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -5-
Consequently, the recovery of contraband from the
petitioner falls within the ambit of commercial category. Learned
State counsel submits that apart from the present case, two more FIRs
have been found to be registered against the present petitioner, which
are as under:-
“1. FIR No. 259 dated 12.11.2022 u/s 21, 29 NDPS
Act, P.S. City Sunam. This case is under trial.
2. FIR No. 08 dated 06.02.2023 u/s 21,29 NDPS Act,
P.S. Dharamgarh. This case is under trial”.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. While considering the grant of concession of bail in the
cases involving the recovery of “commercial quantity” of contraband
from the accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter
of State of Kerala etc. Vs. Rajesh Etc., 2020(1) RCR (Criminal)
818: 2020 AIR Supreme Court 721 as follows:-
18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is
circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are
reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not
guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the
legislature which is required to be followed. At this
juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite.
That provision makes the offences under the Act
cognizable and non−bailable. It reads thus:−
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -6-
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non−bailable.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A
and also for offences involving commercial quantity]
shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless–
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity
to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application,
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause
(b) of sub−section (1) are in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
or any other law for the time being in force on granting
of bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be
followed while considering the application for bail
moved by the accused involved in offences under NDPS
Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors.
1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 93: 1999(9) SCC 429, it has
been elaborated as under:−
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative
mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -7-
should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the
accused commits murder of one or two persons, while
those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are
instrumental in causing death or in inflicting
death−blow to a number of innocent young victims, who
are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly
impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society;
even if they are released temporarily, in all probability,
they would continue their nefarious activities of
trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely.
Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved.
This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to
punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly
observed about the adverse effect of such activities in
Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa
[1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 505: [(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as
under:
24. With deep concern, we may point out that the
organized activities of the underworld and the
clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances into this country and illegal
trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug
addiction among a sizeable section of the public,
particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes
and the menace has assumed serious and alarming
proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to
effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and
booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects
and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament
in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -8-
introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory
minimum imprisonment and fine.
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the
market, Parliament has provided that the person accused
of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released
on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions
provided in Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any
justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid
mandate while ordering the release of the
respondent−accused on bail. Instead of attempting to
take a holistic view of the harmful socio−economic
consequences and health hazards which would
accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the
court should implement the law in the spirit with which
Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.”
20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of
power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations
contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also
subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which
commences with non−obstante clause. The operative
part of the said section is in the negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person
accused of commission of an offence under the Act,
unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is
that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -9-
must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of
these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting
bail operates.
21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means
something more than prima facie grounds. It
contemplates substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The
reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires
existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case
on hand, the High Court seems to have completely
overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in
addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or
any other law for the time being in force, regulating the
grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail
under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.
22. We may further like to observe that the learned
Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua
non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS
Act“.
8. In the present case also, it is apparent that 800 tablets of
Tramadol Hydrochloride were recovered from the present petitioner
and total weight of 800 tablets was found to be 304.8 grams and the
recovery falls under the commercial quantity. Apart from that, it is
apparent from the record, the petitioner is a habitual offender and was
also found involved in two more cases in the district. Still further, the
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033381
CRM M-38998 of 2024 (O&M) -10-
other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have
been seriously disputed by the learned State counsel also and this
Court is not making any observation in this regard as the defence of
the petitioner may be prejudiced before the trial Court. In fact, the
recovery of Tramadol Hydrochloride from the petitioner falls within
the purview of commercial quantity and keeping in view the bar
contained under Section 37 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to
concession of regular bail.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is
ordered to be dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
05.03.2025 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 21:31:23 :::