CRM-M-73607 v. State of Punjab

MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gunjan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gunjan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Mr. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 88 88 dated 22.04.2025, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the , registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City , District Hoshiarpur. at Police Station City Model Town, District Hoshiarpur

2. As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the seeing the police party and threw a side of Purhiran allegedly became perplexed on seeing the police party and threw a side of Purhiran allegedly became perplexed on side of Purhiran allegedly became perplexed on , upon which transparent polybag into the grass. On suspicion, he was apprehended, upon which transparent polybag into the grass. On suspicion, he was apprehended transparent polybag into the grass. On suspicion, he was apprehended disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the he disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said recovery, the present FIR was registered. recovery, the present FIR w

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73607- -2025 (O&M) -2- the petitioner was implicated solely on the upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was implicated solely on the the petitioner was implicated solely on the upon him. It is further submitted that basis of the disclosure statement asis of the disclosure statement. He further submitted that the petitioner was . He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged commercial quantity and the FSL report is still quantity falls within the non-commercial quantity and the FSL report is still commercial quantity and the FSL report is still quantity falls within the non d counsel further submits that though three other FIRs under the awaited. Learned counsel further submits that though three other FIRs under the d counsel further submits that though three other FIRs under the awaited. Learne NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and no further recovery is to be effected from him. no further recovery

4. learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail on the Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail on the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail on the Per contra ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, the petitioner as per the custody certificate placed on record, it is not disputed that the petitioner as per the custody certificate placed on record, it is not disputed that as per the custody certificate placed on record, it is not disputed that is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in the present case falls within the category of non- the present case falls within the category of non -commercial quantity.

5. have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it may be noticed that the alleged recovery was may be noticed that the alleged recovery accused Raghu was effected from co-accused Raghu Kumar and not from the . The petitioner was apprehended solely on the and not from the petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended solely on the . The petitioner was apprehended solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Raghu Kumar disclosure statement of co . The petitioner has remained in accused Raghu Kumar. The petitioner has remained in custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is t any further recovery is to be effected from also not the case of the prosecution that any further recovery is to be effected from t any further recovery is to be effected from also not the case of the prosecution tha the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be on bail in the other cases as well. on bail in the other cases as well.

6. As As As As regards regards regards regards submission of submission of submission of submission of learned State learned State learned State learned State counsel counsel counsel counsel , reference is placed upon the judgment of petitioner is involved in more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of , reference is placed upon the judgment of petitioner is involved in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73607- -2025 (O&M) -3-