Ramit Kapoor @ Manna v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 1.

RAMIT KAPOOR @ MANNA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT 2.

PANKAJ KUMAR @ PANKU ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-31179-2026.

Mr. Shivender Pal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-32244-2026 H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

By this common order, two petitions shall be disposed of. 2.

The petitioners are seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.83 dated 03.04.2026 under sections 22, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act and section 223 of BNS Act (Section 188 of IPC) registered at Police Station B-Division, District Amritsar.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.2026, the police party apprehended one Vanshdeep Singh, on the basis of suspicion. Upon his search, 400 intoxicant tablets containing salt Tramadol along with drug

₹ money amounting to 5,000/- were allegedly recovered from his conscious possession. During the course of investigation, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by accused Vanshdeep Singh, a further recovery of 9,000 Pregabalin capsules was also effected. Petitioner - Ramit Kapoor, was nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Vanshdeep Singh. Thereafter, on the basis of the disclosure statement of Ramit Kapoor, petitioner - Pankaj Kumar @ Panku was also nominated.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners. The petitioners have been nominated as accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. He further submits that the petitioners are in custody for more than 02 months and 14 days and are not involved in any other criminal case. They, thus, pray for grant of bail to the petitioners. 5.

Notice of motion.

6.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificates in the Court today and the same are taken on record. As per the custody certificates, the petitioners are in custody for more than 02 months and 14 days.

7.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the

parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that petitioners have been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused; the petitioners are in custody for more than 02 months and 14 days and are not involved in any other case; the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time and continuous detention of the petitioners would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial. 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

10.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11.

It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order the petitioners are found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of their bail. 12.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(H.S.GREWAL) 02.07.2026 JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No