IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (cid:1)

(113) CRM-M-71499-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 20.02.2026 RANJIT SINGH @ RANA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

CRM-640-2026

1. Application for placing on record certain documents is allowed and the document annexed with the application is ordered to be placed on record as Annexure P-3.

CRM-M-71499-2025

1. The instant one is the third petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.125 dated 20.05.2024 registered under Section 21, 21-B, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS”) at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar. His previous two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 15.01.2025 and 05.08.2025 respectively passed by this Court.

2. As per the allegations, on the night of 19.05.2024, BSF officials were patrolling near the border area, when they heard a dropping sound in the nearby field of one Baldev Singh. They rushed to the location, a small packet of suspected contraband wrapped in a yellow packet was found. On weighing the packet 575 grams of heroin was found. The BSF officials informed about the same to the Police on 20.05.2024 and the contraband was taken into possession. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation on the basis of secret information vide Rapat No.15 dated 29.06.2024, the petitioner was apprehended on the allegations that he had smuggled the heroin from Pakistan. He was arrested on 29.06.2024 and one mobile phone was recovered from his conscious possession. Investigation now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery of contraband has been effected from him. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in this case. The recovered contraband was not effected from his fields and he was not identified by the BSF officials. He has clean antecedents. Each day spent in custody gives him a new ground to move bail afresh. The investigation now stands concluded. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore since none out of 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner coupled with the fact that the present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no specious change in the circumstances from the dismissal of his earlier petition. The petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have smuggled the contraband from Pakistan. However, no recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 29.06.2024. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future as none out of 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. It is well-settled law that the Court, while considering an application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable app