E-Paper
High court dismisses woman constable’s bail plea in DA case
Punjab and Haryana HC denies bail to cop Amandeep Kaur in DA case, citing serious allegations and ongoing investigations into her wealth and drug charges.
Chandigarh
The allegations against a woman cop being probed by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) in a disproportionate (DA) case are “grave and attract serious concern”, particularly in light of the position of public trust held by her, the Punjab and Haryana high court said while dismissing bail plea of the woman constable.
The constable — Amandeep Kaur — had moved the high court seeking bail arguing that she had been falsely implicated in the case. Amandeep initially got entangled in a drug trafficking case and is now also being probed by the VB in a DA case.
She was arrested with 17.7gm of heroin on April 2 while driving in a black SUV. When her movable and immovable properties acquired between 2018 and 2025 were scrutinised during the investigation, it came to fore that she had a total income of ₹1.08 crore during the said period while her expenditure stood at ₹1.39 crore, the VB claimed.
Later, assets, including a Mahindra Thar, a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle, residential plots valued at over ₹1 crore, two iPhones and a Rolex watch, were also recovered from her.
A case was registered on May 26 based on these findings under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Bathinda range police station.
“The material placed before this court, including the financial analysis chart submitted with the FIR, reveals a substantial and prima facie unjustified increase in wealth during the check period. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding arbitrary selection of the check period is not persuasive in the present context, especially when viewed in light of the overall financial inflow and also the alleged involvement of the petitioner in two other criminal cases, including a case under the NDPS Act,” the bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said.
The court rejected the explanation given by her lawyer stating that alternative sources of income — such as brand endorsements or social media monetization — has neither been substantiated on record nor is there any credible trial demonstrating lawful and declared generation of income.
“The nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the disproportion, the possibility of further recovery and scrutiny, and the involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases necessitate a thorough investigation that would be hampered if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage,” it said, adding that the court also cannot lose sight of the fact that further investigation is underway, and a supplementary chargesheet is proposed to be filed on the basis of additional material discovered during the investigation.
