208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52074-2025 Date of decision : 09.04.2026 Amandeep Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Harlove Singh Rajpur, Advocate Mr. Manjot Singh Bhullar, Advocate and Mr. Harman Bir Singh Juneja, 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 in case FIR No.86 dated 03.07.2025, under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while on patrolling on 03.07.2025, saw a woman standing on the bridge near Budhel, who on seeing the police got perplexed and threw a black envelope which she was holding in her right hand. On suspicion, she was apprehended by the police party. On asking, she disclosed her name to be Amandeep Kaur @ Amne. She was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the envelope being thrown by her and thus, the search of the same was conducted. On conducting the search, 255 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered from the envelope having been thrown by her. She failed to produce any license regarding possession of the same and hence, the FIR was registered and she was arrested on spot. The investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of FSL report, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court, Ludhiana vide order dated 08.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present petition for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that admittedly the recovery was effected from the envelope allegedly thrown by the petitioner and thus, no conscious possession has been proved. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however, no independent witness was joined by the investigating agency. He submits that there is blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act, while conducting the search. To buttress his arguments, he submits that the petitioner is has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 1 ½ years, however, there is no material progress in the trial. He submits that at the time of her arrested, she is not even provided the ground of arrest. He submits that even otherwise the alleged recovery effected is 255 grams of heroin whereas the quantity above 250 grams of heroin is commercial quantity and thus, the alleged recovery from the petitioner is marginally above the commercial quantity and thus, it is debatable whether the weight of the contraband recovered was commercial or non-commercial in nature. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the recovery has been effected from an envelope having been thrown by the petitioner on seeing the police party. He submits that alleged recovery effected is of 255 grams of heroin, which falls under the commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the present case. He, on instructions, has submitted that investigation is complete and challan has been presented, however, charges are yet to be framed. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record