Vidha @ Vidya Kaur vs State Of Haryana

HH...SSS... GGGRRREEEWWWAAALLL,,, JJJ... (((OOORRRAAALLL))

This is the first petition seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (U/s 439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No. 48 dated 21.02.2026 registered under Sections 21-C/29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act 1985 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra (Haryana).

The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2026, on the basis of a secret information the Police party apprehended co-accused Suraj along-with his motorcycle, having in his possession 286 gms of Heroin. The petitioner was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by one of the co-accused, namely Surjeet Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery of contraband. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 12 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 12 days.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery of contraband; the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 12 days and is not involved in any other case; the trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’.

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 bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

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

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

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