Ranjit Singh @ Manga v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (235) DATE OF DECISION:12.05.2026 Ranjit Singh @ Manga ........Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab .........Respondent

CORAM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present

Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab.

*** SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL) 1.

This is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNSS') seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.28 dated 09.04.2025, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'the NDPS Act') registered at Police Station City Raikot, District Ludhiana.

2.

Allegations against the petitioner are that on 09.04.2025 at about 07:50 PM, he was found in conscious possession of 40 loose tablets containing salt Etizolam.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the following grounds;

i. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case;

ii. That the alleged recovery was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather the same was allegedly effected from a public place;

iii. That no independent witness was joined by the investigating agency at the time of alleged search and recovery proceedings;

iv. That the alleged search and recovery were conducted in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; and v. That the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2025, i.e. for the last more than one year.

4.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab, appears and files Custody Certificate dated 11.05.2026 of the petitioner and the same is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the bail petition on the following grounds:

I That the petitioner was apprehended with 40 loose tablets containing salt Etizolam which falls within the category of 'commercial quantity' and ii That the petitioner is not having clean and clear antecedents as he is involved in two more cases. 5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:

i.

That recovery allegedly effected from conscious possession of petitioner contains 5.68 gms of Etizolam, which is more than double the prescribed limit of 'commercial quantity';

ii.

That the trial is already in progress and there is no undue delay in the proceedings;

iii.

That there is no ground to dilute the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the present case;

iv.

That the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, as he is involved in two other cases, i.e. one under the NDPS Act and another under the IPC.

8.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

9.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.

10.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 12.05.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No