AMRITPAL KAUR @ AMRIT KAUR vs STATE OF PUNJAB - 2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 95463

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 95463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Virinder Aggarwal, J
AMRITPAL KAUR @ AMRIT KAUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M-7299-2026 (O&M) (315)

Important Points

Non-compliance with the mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing renders the arrest legally unsustainable and constitutes a valid ground for granting bail.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.483
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.439
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: S.21(c), S.27-A, S.29, S.37, S.52(1)
Aircraft Act, 1934: S.10, S.11, S.12
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.317(2)
Constitution of India: Art.21, Art.22, Art.141

Headnote

The petitioner sought regular bail under S. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving S. 21(c), 27-A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and other statutes. The prosecution alleged that a commercial quantity of heroin was recovered from co-accused, and the petitioner was nominated based on disclosure statements and alleged financial transactions. The court found that the arrest was conducted without communicating the specific grounds of arrest in writing, violating the mandatory requirements of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India and S. 52(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The primary issue was whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing constitutes a valid ground for bail despite statutory restrictions. The court reasoned that the communication of grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and not a mere procedural formality. Citing various precedents, the court held that any non-compliance with these safeguards renders the arrest legally unsustainable and constitutes prejudice per se, regardless of the quantity of contraband involved or the absence of actual prejudice to the accused. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and subject to the following conditions

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vipul Jindal
For the Respondents: Baljinder Singh Sra

Table of Content
1. summary of fir and petitioner's nomination based on disclosure statements. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding innocence, lack of recovery, and statutory embargo under ndps act. (Para 3 , 4)
3. mandatory nature of written communication of grounds of arrest under art 22(1) and s. 52(1) ndps. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. evaluation of arrest legality and personal circumstances of the female petitioner. (Para 8)
5. grant of regular bail with specific conditions. (Para 9)

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail pending trial in FIR No. 143 dated 21.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 21(c), 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, and Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 21.09.2025, a police party headed by Inspector Gurwinder Singh was conducting a ‘Naka’ near the Railway Crossing on Ramdas Road, Dera Baba Nanak, when it received specific secret information that certain smugglers were expected to receive and transport a consignment of heroin allegedly dropped by a drone from Pakistan in the area of Village Thetharke. Treating the information as credible, the Investigating Officer informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Dera Baba Nanak, whereupon additional police force was requisitioned and Nakas’ were established at strategic locations to intercept the suspects.

2.1. At about 2:00 A.M., two motorcycles carrying four persons, namely Gurmangal Singh @ Harsh, Jagbir Singh, Dilbagh Singh @ Billa and Jagdeep Singh @ Joban, were intercepted and apprehended. According to the prosecution, after compliance with the mandatory statutory formalities governing search and seizure under the NDPS Act, a recovery of 2.06 kilograms of heroin was allegedly effected from the possession of Gurmangal Singh @ Harsh, 4.02 kilograms of heroin from Jagbir Singh, 2.06 kilograms of heroin from Jagdeep Singh @ Joban, and 2.06 kilograms of heroin from Dilbagh Singh @ Billa. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion.

2.2. During the course of investigation, Bachittar Singh and Amritpal Kaur were nominated on the basis of the disclosure statements allegedly made by co-accused Jagdeep Singh @ Joban and Dilbagh Singh @ Billa, whereas Karan Singh, Raja and Boota Singh were nominated on the strength of the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by co-accused Jagbir Singh and Gurmangal Singh @ Harsh vide Rapat No. 45 dated 23.09.2025. The present applicant-petitioner, who was not named in the FIR, also came to be nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of the aforesaid disclosure statements and was arrested on 23.09.2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is a young woman having a minor son aged 2 years and 5 months, who is solely dependent upon her care and custody. Learned counsel further submits that no contraband or other incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner and that she has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statements allegedly made by the co-accused, which, by themselves, carry limited evidentiary value.

3.1. It is further contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she allegedly paid a sum of 40,000/- to a co-accused at the instance of her husband, Bachittar Singh, who is presently residing abroad, and that certain financial transactions are being relied upon by the prosecution to connect her with