IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21320-2026 Date of decision: 14.05.2026 KARAMJIT KAUR ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.104 dated 01.04.2024 registered under Sections 22(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Kalanwali, District Dabwali.

2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on 01.04.2024, police party acting upon a secret information raided at the house of one Charanjeet Singh @ Charna. During raid of the house, one Simranjeet Kaur wife of Charanjeet Singh @ Charna was present and total 1785 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the house. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused. 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 co-accused during her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. He further submits that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that she in collusion with co-accused purchased the recovered contraband and in order to falsely implicate Simranjit Kaur, kept the contraband in her house. He further submits that however, there is no quality evidence to connect the petitioner with the said allegations. No recovery is to be effected from her. The petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2024. He further contends that co-accused namely Sewa Singh has already been granted concession of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 in CRM-M-12945-2025. The investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented; however, charges are yet to be framed, as such trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping her behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report and custody certificate in the matter, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He submits that the recovered contraband which falls under commercial quantity was actually purchased by the petitioner and the same was planted by the petitioner in the house of Simranjit Kaur in order to get rid of her as during investigation it has been found that the petitioner was having an affair with Gurcharan Singh @ Charna i.e. husband of Simranjit Kaur. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby she is a habitual offender.

5. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR

2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provis