Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mandeep Kour vs Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir Through on 20 July, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Serial No. 1
Supplementary Cause list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
Bail App 9/2026
Reserved on : 17.07.2026
Pronounced on : 20.07.2026
Uploaded on : 20.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
order is pronounced: Full
Mandeep Kour, Aged 25 Years ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
C/O Lovepreet Singh
R/O H.No. 289, Baba Shri Chand Avenue, Majitha
Road, Amritsar, Punjab - 143001
Through Her Mother
Amarjeet Kour, Aged 43 Years,
W/O Avtar singh
R/O 4086, 7, Sultanwind Road, Kot Baba Deep
Singh, Amritsar, Punjab - 143001
Through: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate
Vs.
UT of Jammu & Kashmir through
...Respondent(s)
Police Station Udhampur
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
ORDER
1. By this application, the applicant- Amarjeet Kour is seeking bail of her
daughter- Mandeep Kour, W/O Lovepreet Singh, R/O Baba Shri Chand
Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar, Punjab, who was arrested by the Police
Station Udhampur, in connection with her involvement in case FIR No.
373/2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable in terms
of Sections 8/21/22 of the NDPS Act and is lodged in District Jail
Udhampur from the date of her arrest viz 02.09.2022 till today.
Bail App 9/2026 Page 1 of 11
Brief Facts:
2. It is stated in the application that the accused, Mandeep Kour, along with
her husband namely Lovepreet Singh S/O Karnail Singh R/O Madan Lal
Dheengra Colony Ram Tirath Road Amritsar Punjab were travelling
from Srinagar to Punjab on 02.09.2022 in a vehicle (Toyota Innova)
bearing registration No. PB02CE-8131. Upon reaching Jakhani,
Udhampur, the said vehicle was intercepted by the Naka Party and
during the search of the vehicle, seven packets of transparent Heroine
like narcotic substance were found in its dickey. Consequently, Mandeep
Kour, along with her husband were arrested and case FIR No. 373/2022
came to be registered at the Police Station Udhampur for the commission
of offences punishable in terms of Sections 8/21/22 of the NDPS Act.
3. The investigation of the case culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet
against both the accused before the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udhampur [with special powers under NDPS Act]
{hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”}. During the pendency of the
trial, the accused, Mandeep Kour, filed an application before the Trial
Court, seeking grant of bail on the grounds stated therein. Upon
consideration of the matter, the Trial Court, vide order dated 20.12.2025,
dismissed the bail application, inter alia, holding that the offence alleged
against the accused is grave and heinous in nature, affecting society at
large and does not inspire satisfaction of the court that the accused was
required to be bailed out at that point of time, given the apprehension
Bail App 9/2026 Page 2 of 11
that she may indulge in similar activities while on bail, as she has
directly been involved in the supply of the contraband in question.
4. The applicant has now approached this Court seeking the release of the
accused, Mandeep Kour, on bail, inter alia, on the grounds that there is
nothing adverse reported against the said lady, who was travelling in the
vehicle with her husband to visit Kashmir, pursuant to her marriage with
the co-accused- Lovepreet Singh; that the prosecution does not refer to
the contraband having been seized from the possession of Mandeep
Kour; that the rigor of Section 37 is not attracted in the case; that the trial
of the case is going for more than three years and the prosecution has
only recorded the statements of nine witnesses, while eleven more are
yet to be examined; that the trial of the case is going to take time to
conclude and in case at the conclusion of the trial, the accused- Mandeep
Kour is declared innocent, she cannot be compensated by any means at
the point of time for having remained incarcerated all along.
5. Upon notice, the respondent has appeared and filed his objections,
resisting the claim of the applicant.
6. It is stated in the objections that the accused- Mandeep Kour was
travelling in the offending vehicle carrying seven packets of transparent
heroine like narcotic substance. The accused is believed to be a member
of the larger drug trafficking network as the police, in the case in hand,
has been informed by the Punjab Police that a case bearing FIR no.
93/2014 under Sections 21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act of Police Station
Chatiwind, Amritsar was registered against one Sukhwinder Singh and
the vehicle seized in the instant case had also been used by the said
Bail App 9/2026 Page 3 of 11
accused, which implies that the accused, Mandeep Kour, along with her
husband, Lovepreet Singh, are part of a large drug trafficking network.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made
and perused the material made available.
8. It appears that a Toyato Innova vehicle bearing registration No.
PB02CE-8131, coming from Kashmir towards Punjab on 02.09.2022,
upon being intercepted by the Naka Party at Jakhani,, Udhampur, was
found to be carrying seven packets of heroine like narcotic substance,
which was seized and on such recovery, the occupants of the vehicle i.e.,
Lovepreet Singh and Mandeep Kour, who are stated to be spouses, were
apprehended and subsequently booked for the commission of offences
punishable in terms of Sections 8/21/22 of the NDPS Act. The
investigation resulted into the presentation of the charge-sheet before the
trial court and the trial that commenced subsequently, has by now,
recorded the statements of 14 to 15 witnesses out of 20 cited prosecution
witnesses. The applicant claiming to be the mother of Mandeep Kour,
who was arrested in the said vehicle, had earlier moved a similar
application before the trial court, which did not find favour of the court
and was thus rejected.
9. The applicant has now come before this Court, seeking release of her
daughter Mandeep Kour, on the grounds taken in the application.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused is innocent,
has not committed any offence, as nothing incriminating has been
recovered from her person, even on the showing of the prosecution itself.
The learned counsel further submits that every accused is presumed to be
Bail App 9/2026 Page 4 of 11
innocent till the guilt is proved and in the instant case, the prosecution
story itself shows that the accused Mandeep Kour is innocent, as she has
been only travelling in the offending vehicle from which, the alleged
narcotic substance has been recovered. He further submits that, jail is an
exception while bail is a rule, more particularly, when the accused is a
female. Learned counsel submits that the accused deserves to be given
the concession of bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also
submits that even if it is presumed, but not admitted that the accused has
committed the alleged offence, yet the court needs to take into
consideration that the accused is not a habitual offender but has
committed such offence for the first time. Learned counsel also submits
that the accused is incarcerated for about more than three years now and
the trial is likely to consume considerable amount of time and the
accused cannot be allowed to remain in prison till the time such trial is
concluded. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the
applicant has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court, delivered in case titled “Abida Vs. State
of Haryana” bearing CRM-M-5077-2022 and the order of this court,
delivered in a bail application bearing Bail App No. 34/2025 titled
“Zeeshan Nisar Vs. UT of J&K“.
11. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sumeet Bhatia,
learned Government Advocate, while resisting the claim of the applicant,
submits that the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. He
submits that the accused is involved in one of the most heinous offences,
which crumbles the very fabric of the society, as it targets the individual,
Bail App 9/2026 Page 5 of 11
families and the society as a whole. Learned counsel further submits that
the most vulnerable lot in the process is the young generation and if the
young minds are made to get addicted to the drugs, the society and
eventually, the nation loses the very bright minds. Learned counsel also
submits that the accused being involved in an offence which is against
the society at large, having far reaching consequences, deserves to be
shown no leniency. He further submits that upon personal search of the
accused Mandeep Kour, one Iphone 13 Pro Max with Jio SIM No.
6284725650, one Samsung Galaxy F-12, one Samsung Galaxy A-32
along with SIM No. 8283996280 and Cash of Rs. 1,10,000/- were
recovered. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the
recovery of these expensive articles would imply that the accused is in
fact working as a member of a larger drug trafficking network using
different SIM cards to hide her identity. Learned counsel further submits
that the recovery of narcotic substance falls within the commercial
quantity category, therefore, the court has to record its satisfaction that
there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has not
committed the offence, as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Union of
India v. Prateek Shukla“, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 430, and “State
(NCT of Delhi) through Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lokesh Chadha“,
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 724.
12. As would appear from the prosecution story, the accused Mandeep Kour,
has been traveling in a vehicle from which the alleged contraband
Bail App 9/2026 Page 6 of 11
weighing about 7 Kg has been recovered by the Police Station
Udhampur at Jhakani Naka on 02.09.2022. The accused has been
arrested on the same date and is in custody till now. From the perusal of
the record, the accused appears to be a young lady of about 25 years of
age and had entered into wedlock with the other co-accused named in the
FIR in question, just few months before the date of incident.
13. The applicant has specifically pleaded that the accused is not a habitual
offender and has not indulged in such activities in past, therefore, has no
past criminal antecedents to her name. The said plea has not been
opposed by the respondent except for referring to an implied assertion
that since the vehicle used for the crime in question has earlier also been
involved in a similar kind of activity, for which a case has been
registered at Punjab, involving different accused, therefore, there is a
likelihood that the accused might be a member of larger drug trafficking
network.
14. While the court takes note of the seriousness of the offence, it also needs
to bear in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances in which the accused
is booked for her involvement in such a heinous offence. Mere
seriousness of the offence does not mean that the accused alleged to be
involved in such offence be necessarily punished or kept incarcerated till
the trial is concluded, irrespective of the merit of such allegation. The
accused has a right to seek concession of bail from the courts of law and
it is the court that is cast with the duty to examine and assess the
suitability of granting or rejecting such plea of bail concession. In the
instant case, there are circumstances that do favour the accused,
Bail App 9/2026 Page 7 of 11
Mandeep Kour, in her capacity of being wife of the owner/driver of the
vehicle, in which the alleged contraband has been recovered insofar as
the bail application is concerned. It needs to be reiterated that, the plea
taken by the accused that she had no knowledge about the contraband
being carried in the offending vehicle cannot be lost sight of completely,
while considering her application for bail. While the plea is taken by the
applicant that the accused had no knowledge of the contraband, the
conscious possession of such material with the accused gets doubted. In
fact, the conscious possession of the narcotics with the accused,
Mandeep Kour is completely missing by the showing of prosecution
itself.
15. The submission of learned counsel for respondent that the rigor of
Section 37 of the NDPS would apply in the case is noted to be rejected
only as the mandate prescribed by the said section has been fulfilled by
hearing the learned cousnel for the other side by recording the
satisfaction vis-à-vis the grant or otherwise of the bail application. The
Section 37, for facility of reference is reproduced herein below:
[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences
under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for
offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released
on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, andBail App 9/2026 Page 8 of 11
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the
time being in force on granting of bail.]
16. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that nothing
incriminating was found from the personal search of the accused, does
also require to be weighed in light of the relevant provisions of law, as to
whether the ingredients envisaged by the NDPS Act, are fulfilled or not.
17. One more vital aspect of the matter is that the accused has been
incarcerated for almost four years. As submitted by the learned counsel
for the applicant, the statements of 14 to 15 witnesses have already been
recorded, and only five or six witnesses remain to be examined. This
indicates that almost the entire prosecution evidence has already been
brought on record, while the remaining evidence to be recorded may still
take a considerable amount of time. In such circumstances, the continued
incarceration of the accused for the entire duration of the trial is not
warranted. The accused does not necessarily require to be kept in
custody for the time, the entire evidence is taken on record, as the
apprehension of the respondent that the accused, if granted bail, may
influence the witnesses, who are yet to be examined, can be taken care of
by putting the accused to reasonable conditions, while being enlarged on
bail.
Bail App 9/2026 Page 9 of 11
18. The Apex Court in case titled “Chandrakala Vs. State of NCT of Delhi“
on 09.03.2026, bearing SLP (CRL.) 587/2026, while dealing with a
similar kind of case, released the woman accused on bail while having
regard to the slow pace of trial. It would be profitable to reproduce
paragraph No. 5 of the said order herein, thus:
“5. After investigation chargesheet has been filed and
charges have also been framed. Out of 18 witnesses 1
witness has been examined in part. Having heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we notice that
co-accused have been released on bail. Appellant is in
custody for the past 1 year 11 months and having regard to
her age being 68 years and the trial is progressing at a
snail’s pace, we are of the considered view that prolonged
incarceration is not warranted. At this stage, she is entitled
for being released on bail.”
19. I am also fortified in my view by the judgments of the Rajasthan and
Gujrat High Courts delivered in cases titled “Muskan v. State of
Rajasthan“, reported as 2024:RJ-JD:43565; and “Union of India
through Amit Kumar Intelligence Offier v. State of Gujarat” reported as
2022 SCC online Guj 1533.
20. Having regard to what has been said hereinbefore, the application is
allowed and the accused is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing of
personal bond in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the
Jail Superintendent concerned, and the surety bond of the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court. On
furnishing of the personal bond and surety bond, the accused shall be
released from the custody. While on bail, the accused shall be subject to
the following conditions:
Bail App 9/2026 Page 10 of 11
I. That the accused shall not leave the territorial limits of this
Court, without seeking prior permission in that behalf.
II. That the accused shall not try to win over the prosecution
witnesses in any way.
III. That the accused shall not try to hamper or tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
IV. That the accused shall appear before the trial court on each
and every date of hearing fixed therein without fail.
V. Any violation of these conditions shall amount to cessation of
the concession of bail.
21. This Court has dealt with the aspect of bail only, therefore, the trial
court, shall proceed with the trial without getting influenced by any of
the observations of this Court as recorded in this order.
22. Disposed of on the above lines.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
20.07.2026
“Adil Ismail”
Whether the Order is Reportable? No
Whether the Order is Speaking? Yes
Bail App 9/2026 Page 11 of 11
