Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS of 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR NO.66 dated 29.04.2026 under Sections 21-B, 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Chatiwind District Amritsar Rural.

Brief facts of the case are that on 29.04.2026, the police apprehended Paramjit Kaur i.e. the petitioner and Ranjit Singh near the Tarn Taran Road overbridge, Amritsar. From Paramjit Kaur's conscious possession, 98 grams of heroin was recovered, while ₹6,200 alleged to be drug sale proceeds was recovered from Ranjit Singh. During investigation, Ranjit Singh disclosed that he had purchased the recovered heroin from Gurwinder Singh alias Soni, who was consequently nominated under Section 29 NDPS Act and arrested on 01.05.2026. Gurwinder Singh, in turn, disclosed that he had procured the heroin from Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh, leading to Arshdeep's nomination and arrest on 04.05.2026. The prosecution thereafter alleged that all the accused were involved in financing and facilitating illicit trafficking of heroin, attracting offences under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the alleged recovery is 98 grams of heroin (non-commercial quantity) and the petitioner is in custody for about 4 months, and the challan/final report has not yet been presented. It is further contended that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are not attracted.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that petitioner is involved in financing and illicit trafficking of narcotic substances/ drugs. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 30 days and is not involved in any other case.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 30 days and is not involved in any other case; challan/final report has not yet been presented coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of her bail.