263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45965-2025 Date of decision : 29.08.2025 Ranjeet Singh @ Rana .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Gurjeet Singh Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0051 dated 01.05.2024, under Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act, 1934 and lateron on added the offences (under Section 21-C, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act), registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 01.05.2024, the police received a secret information to the effect that some objectionable material wrapped in an envelope was lying in the fields of Jaswant Singh S/o Jarnail Singh, resident of Kalsia. On receiving the secret information, raiding party was constituted and the same reached at the place disclosed, wherein a pistol wrapped with tape of yellow and white colour was found. On removing the tape, a pistol of brown colour was found on which ‘Made in Austria’ was written. The same was taken into possession. It was found that the pistol was called for by an unknown person from Pakistan and dropped at the place of occurrence through drone and thus, the FIR was registered for the offence under the Arms Act and Aircraft Act. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. During investigation the complicity of the petitioner was surfaced and resultantly, he was arrested on 20.06.2024. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the same was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide order dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Jobanjit Singh @ Joban and Vishaldeep Singh. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the orders dated 19.08.2025 and 25.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-30186-2025 and CRM-M-12352-2025, respectively, whereby, co-accused, namely, Jobanjit Singh @ Joban and Vishaldeep Singh, have been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2024. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who have already been granted bail.

4. Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with co-accused, namely, Jobanjit Singh @ Joban and Vishaldeep Singh. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined. However, he submits that recovery of 500 grams heroin along with a pistol, was effected from the petitioner, which falls under the commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 20.06.2024. Co-accused, namely, Jobanjit Singh @ Joban and Vishaldeep Singh are on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with them. As submitted before this Court, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the speedy trial is the fundamental right of every accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260 this Court is of the opinion that the case of the peti