Rana Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab



 



   



 

  

 

! "#!$%
   !& '

()      

   !" #

  $$$    !& '* " +,
 By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, co-accused in case bearing FIR No.154 dated 17.07.2024 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 21 of the NDPS Act and Sections 341(2)/489 BNS at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar, has prayed for grant of bail.

2.

Relevant facts emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-
 



      

  !

"  ""

 # $ !   % # 

  &     ""

 '

&&   $( &)

  )" &  ""

*  +,-./ 0,+ " 1# #,+ " #1 )         "     $    % #  )

 #" " FIR No.154 dated 17.07.2024#   , 23$0   Sections 341(2)/489 BNS, $"  Lopoke, District Amritsar  +  

+4  #"+ ,

 ""

)  

 

 ,"5# 

%  &  &      
'('()  !    *

  * +,  *-

!

" !& !



 (()(.

& 



 * 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. False recovery has been planted upon the petitioner. Further; requisite mandatory provisions &* !* &

/  *  !0 1&  &!/ 

/    *   /          2&

3       & * ! 4*  a serious doubt on the genuineness of the story put-forth by prosecution. The next leg of submission raised by learned counsel is that petitioner, &         /    
'('()  &  

 *  * 

&  1     

/!*

 *    5

!  
)

&

*/4!

    



&*  /*&**

*

0! *

 

*
 -

6   ! */&

 !

  /**&

! 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of bail while referring to the status report dated 08.09.2025 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Inderjit Singh, PPS, # /   * % #

 

!

7*8&   *  * * 06 !

    

 

%&  & *keeping in their illegal possession of 5 (( !2 .3Learned State counsel further contends that contraband recovered in the present case falls within the 'Commercial Quantity'. In view thereof, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted which bar the grant of bail, unless the twin conditions prescribed in the provision are satisfied. Further according to him, if lenient view is taken in favour of the petitioner, the likelihood of him indulging in similar offence and fleeing from process of justice cannot be ruled out. # !    * 

*/" *

* !

 

5

*Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.

Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein case titled as Shambu Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP Criminal 16671 of 2024, decided on 23.04.2024, it was held as under:-
6 ""



   ,7 & 

#&  ) 

 ",++     + "

 23$0    8      6

"

" , ) + . 5#.  "  # 

#  9+ " . " #",      5 ,  

 " 

 ) "#  +  #    ","

  9+ ) ,    ,

"+ #, 4

) 0  
  

          !" !#      

     /     * 93* !-  * :**

&&  );

*9<= >#>+-  /   !

 !! *5

/ 6 $%  & %  & %      '(!))"( 93* !-  *   *  


78:'

=#

   /  !

*

/&

  & ***&

!

**/ *$  

  '(!))(+,  *  /

/&

  %#  &&** */ 1   (

*9<= >#>+-  /7-!! *5

/8 &    */ 93* !-  6   & ,  

'(!#!'

93* !-  *

&&*  1  ** * 9<= >#>+-  /7

*  /  8 9

      !

*

-

**  /!     /!   **//

  *   

/!*

 *        5

  !  

  &         /   
'('()&  *  * 

&   -     !  !

    



  /&*   /*  */

          *: / 



* *

.

- :# /  "

** / **& 

?%

6  """ #)#  + , "5#  "" 

  "5#

6 )"" + )#  "

  6    )""    #:  +     # )

6 )""

  , "5#    ,; #";+    ,,5#

6  ""++ ,,+"

,,, )   # ,++,)# ,

  6     ""    "    "    #

  +   1# ), ,   # + ,+" #, 5#

 ",, + ) + 

6  "" + +#" 

6  "",#  + "#+  6 "5#,)  ""  +"""# ,  ,    & 

, ,   + "" ") + " 6 "5#    , +

;6 "5# 3#<

 + +  

+

  )""    '

 */ 

**&

!*

  /  



**

 / 1**

 * 

/  6

& 

*   

!  * !

   &*     !

 *&*

 */  



+   !& ',

  

"# - $ &#+  @ 1 : ?>:= @  * ?>:=