Paramjit Singh @ Babbu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 30.04.2026 PARAMJIT SINGH @ BABBU ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.312 dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Gurharsahai, District Ferozepur, Punjab. 2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2025, SI Barjinder Singh along with his team was on patrolling on account of narcotics and suspected persons. When the police party reached near village Changa Rai Uttar, then a secret informer informed the police party and provided secret information that the present petitioner is having links with Pakistani smugglers and he got smuggled heroin from Pakistani smugglers into Indian

Territory. He further informed that the petitioner had concealed the heroin in the room of his new residential house. Based on the information, a Ruqa was prepared and the instant case was registered. Thereafter, as per the secret information, SI Barjinder Singh raided the disclosed place, but nobody was found present in the house. In the presence of Malkit Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, r/o Chak Changa Rai Hithar alias Chandi Wala and Buta Singh son of Nanak Singh, r/o Chandiwala, a search was conducted in the house of the petitioner and 1 kg heroin was recovered from the room of the newly constructed house. The recovery was effected in the presence of Malkit Singh and Buta Singh and Gazetted Officer. The recovery memo was prepared at the spot.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The recovery is alleged to have been effected from the house of the petitioner in the absence of any other inhabitant of the house. In fact, the wife of the petitioner had defeated her rival, namely Kaushalya Rani, wife of Gurmeet Singh, who is a close associate of a sitting MLA of the ruling dispensation in Punjab. Therefore, the heroin has been planted upon the petitioner. As he is ready and willing to join the investigation, he be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

4.

The learned State counsel has filed a reply dated 29.04.2026, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that

secret information was received of the petitioner having smuggled heroin into India from Pakistan. A raid was conducted at his residence in the presence of two independent witnesses and the recovery of 1 kg of heroin came to be effected from the house. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the petitioner had kept the heroin in his residential house. Other than the instant FIR, he is an accused in another case under the NDPS Act emanating out of FIR No.219 dated 28.10.2023. The nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as also his criminal antecedents do not entitle him to the concession of anticipatory bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 6.

As per the investigating agency, secret information was provided to the effect that the petitioner had smuggled heroin into India from Pakistan and had kept the same in his residential house. A raid was conducted and the recovery of 1 kg of heroin has been effected from the residential premises of the petitioner. The said recovery has been effected in the presence of two persons namely Malkit Singh S/o Ujjagar Singh and Buta Singh S/o Nanak Singh. Other than pleading false implication on account of political rivalry, the petitioner has furnished no explanation whatsoever for the contraband recovered from his house. He also has criminal antecedents, inasmuch FIR No.219 dated 28.10.203 under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act stands registered against him. As the offence is prima facie established that the investigation is to be taken up to its logical conclusion, the custodial

interrogation is certainly required particularly when the allegations pertain to cross-border smuggling of contraband.

7.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

8.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 30.04.2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No