Ranjit Singh Alias Ranga v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.07.2025 Ranjit Singh @ Ranga ....Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Ms. Divya Gulati, Advocate (through V.C.) for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0088 dated 16.06.2024 registered under Sections 21(C) and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') at Police Station Chhehartta, District Amritsar. 2.

As per the prosecution case, the FIR (supra) was registered on the allegation that the petitioner was apprehended on 16.06.2024 and heroin weighing 255 gms along with Rs.2,000/- have been recovered from the petitioner. Hence, the impugned FIR was registered. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR (supra). The alleged recovery of 255 grams of heroin is marginally higher than the commercial quantity. The entire recovery was taken into possession vide recovery memo along with the polythene bag and weighed collectively

and in case, the weight of the polythene bag is deducted from the alleged contraband, the recovery would fall under the ambit of noncommercial quantity. He further submits that the alleged recovery is only 5 grams higher than the commercial quantity. The petitioner has undergone total custody of 01 year, 01 months and 10 days. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are total 19 prosecution witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of which, only 01 PW has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate today in the Court which is taken on record and he opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, however, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 01 year, 01 months and 10 days. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress. Out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 01 PW has been examined so far. However, this delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner.

7.

Further the recovered quantity exceeds the commercial quantity only by 5 grams. In cases where the recovery only marginally breaches the threshold for commercial quantity of the alleged contraband, this Court has found it proper to grant regular bail. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments rendered by this Court in Davinder Singh alias Baba vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M64821-2023 decided on 25.01.2024, Gurmeet Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-1007-2024 decided on 15.01.2024, Ranjti Singh @ Ranjit Kumar vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-57185-2022 decided on 10.01.2023, Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-21460-2022 decided on 08.02.2023, Harjeet Singh alias Sonu vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-8242-2023 decided on 15.01.2024, Jang Kanwar vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-53415-2021 decided on 19.01.

2022, Sukhchain Singh @ Manga vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-7857-2022 decided on 04.04.2022, Pardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-46244-2022 decided on 19.01.2023, Hari Yadav @ Haiya vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-37645-2021)' decided on 11.11.2022, 'Shankar Prashad Chanau vs. The State of Punjab, CRM-M-24090-2020, decided on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-170212021, decided on 31.08.2021, Salim vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M42436-2020, decided on 24.02.2021, Satnam Singh @ Chacha vs State of Punjab, CRM-M-34531-2020, decided on 25.02.2021, Gagandeep vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-3055-2021, decided on 27.01.2021, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M41039-2019, decided on 26.02.2020, Dalbara Singh vs.

47880-2022 decided on 16.01.2023', and Vivek Watts vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-13791-2022 decided on 15.02.2023. 8.

Moreover, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. In fact, keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner namely Ranjit Singh @ Ranga, is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

10.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 30.07.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No