IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranjit Ray ....Petitioner V/s Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana ....Respondent Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Date of uploading: 11.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-DRI.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in case/Crime No.DRI/LDZU/855/INTI/2025/858 under Section not known (likely to be Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985), registered at IA. DRI Ludhiana Zone, District Ludhiana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR is that a car bearing registration No. PB09R-0797 was found parked in an abandoned area. The said vehicle was intercepted and taken into possession by the DRI team. Upon conducting a search, the car was found to contain Ganja concealed in 36 plastic packets wrapped with tape. On weighing, the total gross weight of the contraband was found to be 31.352 kg. During the course of investigation, it was found that the said contraband was being transported/smuggled by the petitioner (herein) in the aforesaid vehicle. Although, the registration of the car does not stand in the name of the petitioner (herein), it has come on record that he had already sold the vehicle to another person on the basis of an affidavit. The concealment of the actual ownership and use of the car appears to have been deliberate and intentional with the intention to facilitate the transportation of narcotics from one place to another. As per the CRCL test report, the seized substance has been confirmed to be Ganja. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is already facing trial in another case—DRI vs. Shivam Singh and Others—pertaining to the recovery of 428.13 kg of Ganja. The alleged recovery clearly falls within the ambit of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR/case was registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the neither the petitioner is registered owner nor the driver of the car in question. He has further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the car in question from one Satnam Singh Sandhu, but the transfer was never effected in his name. It is further submitted that the car in question thereafter had been sold to one Kuldeep Singh, vide agreement dated 05.02.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that no recovery, either of any narcotic substance or any other incriminating material, has been effected from the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no independent or corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence and his name does not even find mention in the FIR. Learned counsel further asserts that no further recovery is likely to be effected at his instance and, hence, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. Learned counsel further asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for.

4. Conversely, Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-DRI has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and pertains to illicit trafficking of narcotics. He has further submitted that the peti