IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 Date of decision: 13.02.2026 SARABJIT KAUR ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Gurneet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate for Mr. Tarun Jhatta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

2. On 28.01.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section

482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

20.09.2025, ASI Raghwinder Parsad along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and, on suspicion, apprehended two persons, namely, Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina, from whose conscious possession 30 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered, and Sultan Singh @ Gaggarh, from whose conscious possession 49 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sukhchain Singh. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. He further submits that initially, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned trial Court till receipt of FSL report vide order dated 28.10.2025 which was vacated vide order dated 18.12.2025 upon receipt of FSL report. He submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 13.02.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, she shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from HC Yadvinder Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined