Ramandeep Singh Alias Ramandeep Alias Ramni v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 RAMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS RAMANDEEP ALIAS RAMNI ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. R.S.Sekhon, Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Devi, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of interim regular bail in case FIR No. 32 dated 12.03.2025 under Section 21 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station- Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2025, the police officials of Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, acting on secret information, apprehended the co-accused and allegedly recovered 1 kg and 20 grams of heroin from his conscious possession without any valid permit or licence. During investigation, the petitioner was subsequently nominated as an accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act solely on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence against him. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2025 and prays for grant of regular bail. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 06 months and 21 days and is involved in 04 other cases.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 21 days; that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery effected from the co-accused coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

-38.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 26.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No