Ranjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab
!
"# $%&
' ( )* +
!"
# $ %!& $' (((( ,+ )$ %
* % +
,,
*' * -.# /0 % 1110123
#
4
% ' !
23 *
% % * 5
* !
!%.6
7 *
48
** 4
7"
** 8* 5 8*9 4
7
'
7 7 8* 4
7 * %*
7
"
** 5 8* 8
8 " '4 6 * 7 * 78 ** 9 7 * 7 7
*4 ' :;
4
'
4 '
*
4 884 *4 ' % 8
** '4 "
;
'
4 "
7 * *
7 %'$ % * %''
'
4
8 ** *
7 < % =
:
*4 ' 7
>
'* 8
"
" 7
* 8 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was nominated in this case on disclosure statement of main accused. No recovery was effected from him. He was arrested on 30.01.2024 and till date he is behind the bars. He is ready to abide by the terms of bail order. Therefore, his regular bail petition may be allowed. 4.
Learned counsel representing State has filed status report, which is taken on record. He confirmed that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. Though petitioner claimed that he was arrested on 30.01.2024 but as per status report, he was arrested on 04.03.2024 and supplementary challan is also presented qua him. FSL report has been received and the salt present in said intoxicant tablets was Alprazolam. During investigation, it was revealed that heroin was purchased from a person residing in Delhi. Considering the huge quantity of recovery effected from co-accused, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 6.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. As per the facts narrated above, present petitioner was not apprehended on the spot nor any recovery was effected from him. He was
+ named by co-accused namely %'$ % * %''
< % % * 7 4
**?
' ; *
* : *4 : 7 7 ;
n the light of aforesaid factual position, without going on the merits of the case, * ' *
* '4 )$ % ** 8 6 ' * ' *
' * '
4 '
*,
1 4<
- . :
1 @ 1# '* @ 1#