IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11^th February, 2026 Binder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 107 dated 07.06.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda.

2. As per the allegations, on 07.06.2025, while performing checking and patrolling duty, the petitioner was found sitting on the canal side. She was having some transparent envelop. On noticing the police officials, she was in panic. She was apprehended on the basis of suspicion. On checking, 06 grams of heroin was recovered from her conscious possession which was taken into custody. The petitioner was formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband has been planted upon her. Investigation stands completed. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Trial is likely to take time. Her involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to her. She is on bail in all such cases. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

4. Custody certificate has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender. There are chances of her committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner falls under non-commercial quantity. She is in custody for a period of over eight months. Though she is shown to be involved in several other cases of similar nature but the same cannot be considered to be the sole reason for denying benefit of bail to her. It is well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the quantity of contraband recovered from her and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment upon the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]

JUDGE

11^th February, 2026

Parveen Sharma