Kirandeep Kaur @ Kirna vs State of Punjab

The prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.111 dated 22.03.2026 registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga, under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

On 22.03.2026, one Jagdeep Singh, was apprehended and was found to be in possession of 5 gms of heroin and 50 loose intoxicant tablets. During his interrogation, he named the present petitioner to be the person from whom the alleged contraband had been purchased. Since the chemical report had not been received and it could not be ascertained as to what the 50 loose tablets were, the said Jagdeep Singh was granted interim bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement of the said Jagdeep Singh. It is further submitted that apart from that, there is no evidence against the petitioner to link him with the offence. He submits that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail stating that the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean as he is involved in seven other cases under the NDPS Act, out of which, he already stands convicted in four cases.

To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentences in the aforesaid cases were for a period of 10-20 days etc. and the petitioner has already undergone the same.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

No doubt, the contraband alleged to have been recovered from Jagdeep Singh was only 5 gms of heroin but along with the same, there were 50 loose intoxicant tablets, for which the chemical report has not been received.

Be that as it may, the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. He is stated to be involved in seven other cases under the NDPS Act, out of which he stands convicted in four cases. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is indulging in carrying sale and purchase of drugs.

That being so, there is no ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.