Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Kaur @ Amaro vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
CRM-M-33532-2019
Date of decision: 01.04.2021
Amarjit Kaur @ Amaro …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Present : Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rana Harasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State with
ASI Nishan Singh.
****
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J (Oral)
(The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in
case FIR No.21 dated 30.01.2019 registered under Section 18 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the
NDPS Act’) and Section 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
‘the IPC’) in Police Station Sadar, District Patiala.
As per the prosecution version on 30.01.2019 police party
headed by ASI Beant Singh CIA Samana present in the area of Grain
Market, Balbera received secret information that Jaswinder Singh @
Sarpanch and Amarjit Kaur (the petitioner) were doing the business of
selling opium and were going from Chika to Patiala via Balbera in
white Pajero with fake number plate while carrying opium in heavy
quantity. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which the
FIR was registered. Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch and the petitioner
were apprehended and recovery of 3 kgs. of opium was made from box
in the dickey of the Pajero car. During investigation, Jaswinder Singh
@ Sarpanch made disclosure statement and got recovered opium
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2021 22:57:24 :::
CRM-M-33532-2019 -2-
weighing 400 gram from dashboard of Audi car parked at the house of
the petitioner. On completion of investigation the petitioner and her co-
accused have been charge-sheeted by the police to face trial.
The petitioner being in custody has filed the present
petition for grant of regular bail.
The petition has been opposed by learned State Counsel in
terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Ajay Pal Singh, PPS,
Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patiala.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
State Counsel and have gone through the relevant record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of secret
information. Recovery of 3 kgs. of opium was made from the box in the
dickey of the Pajero car and from dashboard of Audi car at the instance
of co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch. No recovery was made
from the petitioner. The petitioner is not owner of the Pajero car and
Audi car in question. Pajero car is stated to be owned by co-accused
Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch and Audi car was also parked at the house
of the petitioner by him. Co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch had
the exclusive knowledge regarding opium recovered from dickey of the
Pajero car and dashboard of the Audi car. The petitioner cannot be said
to be in conscious possession of the contraband allegedly recovered
from the dickey of Pajero car and from the dashboard of Audi car
parked at the house of the petitioner at the instance of co-accused
Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch. Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act
were not complied with. Rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS are
not applicable qua the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in any
other case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is in custody since
30.01.2019. Trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed
to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19. No useful purpose will be
served by her further detention in custody. Therefore, the petitioner
may be ordered to be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that
the petitioner is accused of being in conscious possession of
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2021 22:57:24 :::
CRM-M-33532-2019 -3-
commercial quantity of contraband along with her co-accused
Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch. The petitioner is habitual offender and
was involved in 20 other cases some of which are still pending and was
declared proclaimed offender in some of the cases. In view of the
nature of accusation and gravity of offences, the petitioner does not
deserve the concession of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be
dismissed.
However learned State Counsel has conceded that the
petitioner was earlier involved in one case under the NDPS Act in
which she was acquitted and that at present the petitioner is not
involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.
In reply learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner had surrendered in the cases in which she was alleged
to have declared proclaimed offender and at present only one case is
pending against her.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, involvement of
debatable question as to whether the petitioner can be said to be in
conscious possession of the contraband recovered from dickey of
Pajero car and dashboard of Audi car at the instance of co-accused
Jaswinder Singh @ Sarpanch, non-involvement of the petitioner in any
other case under the NDPS Act, consequent inapplicability/due
satisfaction of rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, period of her
custody and the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to
restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19, but
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the considered
view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.
Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate
concerned.
However, bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the
condition that she will not commit any offence under the NDPS Act
after her release on bail and in case of involvement of the petitioner in
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2021 22:57:24 :::
CRM-M-33532-2019 -4-
commission of any offence under the NDPS Act in future, her bail in
the present case shall also be liable to be cancelled on application to be
filed in this regard.
01.04.2021 (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2021 22:57:24 :::
Comments