IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54689-2025 Decided on: 09.03.2026 DIVYANSHI SINGH …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case registered against her, vide FIR No.08 dated 08.01.2025 under Sections 21, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 25, 27, 27A of the NDPS Act (added later on), at Police Station ANTF, SAS Nagar Mohali (Earlier STF Mohali), District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. On 26.09.2025, following order was passed:-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement of her co-accused. Other than that there is no corroborative additional evidence available against him. Reliance is placed on the order in ‘Vijay Singh versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’, which is reproduced as under:-

“The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail.

Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed.

All pending applications are disposed of.”

Notice of motion.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Adjourned to 27.11.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section

438(2) Cr.P.C.:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender her passport, if any.

Meanwhile, the State is directed to file an affidavit/reply as to the exact role of the petitioner and her co-accused alongwith the details of pending FIRs, if any, on or before the next date of hearing.”

3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 26.09.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Karamjit Mohan, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 22.11.2025 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogati