SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 22753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VANDANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54338-2025 Date of decision : 09.12.2025 Vandana .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.383 dated 19.12.2023, under Sections 21/29 and 21(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27 of NDPS Act added lateron), registered at Police Station STF Phase-4, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 19.12.2023, the police party while on patrolling, received a secret information to the effect that Asses @ Ashu, Sukhwinder Singh @ Laddi and Vandana (petitioner) were involved in smuggling of heroin. It was informed that these 03 persons would be coming in their Etios car being No.PB-65Y-0107 to supply heroin to their customers near Red Oak Banquet Hall and if the raid is conducted, they could be arrested along with the contraband. On receiving the information, the raiding party was constituted and they reached at the place as disclosed. The car, as informed was seen coming and the same was stopped. On asking, driver of the car disclosed his name to be Sukhwinder Singh @ Laddi, the person sitting on the passenger seat disclosed his name to be Asses @ Ashu and the lady sitting on the rear seat, disclosed her name to be Vandana (petitioner) was holding a bag in her hands. On suspicion, search of the car and that of the bag having been hold by the petitioner, was conducted. On conducting the search, 1.500 kgs of heroin was recovered from the bag, she was holding. They failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same and thus, the FIR was registered and all the 03 accused were arrested on spot. Investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the same was declined by the trial Court, Ludhiana vide order dated 27.08.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information, however, there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however, no independent witness was joined by the investigating agencies. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 19.12.20203 and she has never been involved in any other case of similar nature. He, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, she deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was specifically named in the secret information. He submits that the alleged recovery effected in the present case is 1.500 kgs of heroin which falls under the category of commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the present case. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 15 witnesses still remain to be examined. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 19.12.2023. As per the custody certificate, petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 11 months and 16 days as on 08.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case i.e. under Sections 420, 376, 120-B, 306 & 506 of IPC, however, she is not involved in any other case of the similar nature. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top