← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/69700/2025dismissed

Rajinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2026-03-13Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-13.03.2026 RAJINDER SINGH ......PETITIONER VS.

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

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) 1.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.22 dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 added later on) registered at Police Station Ladhowal, District Punjab.

2.

On 11.12.2025, the following order was passed:- "1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.22 dated 11.03.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Ladhuwal, Police District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

2. Notice of motion.

3. Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The parties have been heard and material on file has been perused.

4. As per prosecution case, one Pinky Rani was apprehended by the Police and 75 tablets of Etizolam were

-2recovered from her possessi on. On interrogation, she nominated Bimla, Sarabjit Kaur and Jinder (present petitioner) as the suppliers. Apprehending arrest, petitioner applied for bail which has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, who has been nominated as an accused in the disclosure statement of main accused namely Pinky Rani which is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further contended that similarly situated co-accused Sarabjit Kaur has already been released on anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-38621 of 2025 - Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, which was subsequently made absolute vide order dated 19.08.2025 and petitioner too, is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in view of the gravity of the offence.

7. Adjourned to 29.01.2026 for filing status report. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;

iv) such other condition as may be imposed under subsection (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.

8. To be heard along with CRM-M-66587 of 2025."

-33.

Thereafter on 07.03.2026, the following order was passed:- "It has been brought to the notice of this Court that, though, the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement of a coaccused but he is a convict in two other cases under the NDPS Act and an undertrial in one. Adjourned to 13.03.2026.

In the meantime, the learned counsel for the State is directed to file a status report/reply with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite. Interim order to continue " 4.

None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 5.

The learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is an undertrial in two cases and a convict in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Further, he was arrested in one of the two cases yesterday i.e. on 12.03.2026.

6.

In view of the above, the present petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

7.

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

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 13.03.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No