CRM-M- IN 106 Ramandeep Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN CRM-8395 dated 20.1. P-6 is taken CRM-M- 1. 21.09.2025 Station AN petition for 2827-2026, dated 20.01 -7167-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA andeep Singh Versus of Punjab AM: HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for t Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 8395-2026 This is an application for placi 20.1.2026 as Annexure P-6. Application is allowed subject s taken on record. -7167-2026 Petitioner, who is an accuse .2025, registered against him under S ANTF, District SAS Nagar (Mo ion for grant of anticipatory bail. Hi 2026, seeking similar relief was dis 20.01.2026, in the following terms:- 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-8395-2026 IN/AND CRM-M-7167-2026 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 &Petitioner. &Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. te for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. placing on record photo copy of ord ubject to all just exceptions. Annexu accused in case FIR No. 255 date nder Section 22 of NDPS Act, at Polic r (Mohali), has filed the present il. His first petition bearing CRM- as disposed of by this Court vide ord - .2026 of order nnexure dated t Police sent 2nd -M- order GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2. noticed her were on pa Uttar Polic information Kewal Sing habitual of outside his further dis Relying upo -7167-2026 -2 <1. The present petition ha BNS for grant of anticipato 21.09.2025, registered under S Station ANTF, SAS Nagar. 2. After arguing for so instructions submits that the before the trial Court and p directed to be decided within a 3. In view of the prayer opinion on the merits of the ca with a direction to the learn petitioner surrenders within 7 grant of bail, the same be dec accordance with law.= Admittedly, the aforesaid orde Relevant facts as enumerated hereinbelow:- On 12.12.2025, a police team n patrolling duty, when they reache Police Station Guruharsahai at abo ation that Ramandeep Singh @ Ra Singh, resident of Megha Rai Utta al of selling/purchasing narcotics. his house waiting for the custom disclosed physical identification d g upon the said information, the poli 2- n has been filed under Section 48 ipatory bail in FIR No. 255 date der Section 22 of NDPS Act, at Polic some time, learned counsel fo the petitioner is ready to surrend d prays that his bail application b hin a time bound manner. ayer made, without expressing an he case, present petition is disposed learned trial Court that in case th in 7 days and files an application fo e decided within 2 days thereafter, d order has not been complied with. rated from the documents on record b eam headed by ASI Chander Shekha ached near grain market Megha R about 10 AM, they received a secr Raman (present petitioner), son Uttar Police Station Guruharsahai ics. Even as of now, he is standin stomers to sell the pills. Informa on details of Ramandeep Singh (P police team sent notice under Sectio n 482 dated Police el for render ion be g any sed of se the on for ter, in cord be ekhar, a Rai secret son of hai is nding rmant (P). ection GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 42 of NDP disclosed s quantity9. petitioner, the docum Amandeep 2. grant of pr Judge, Spec which, earl dismissed w anticipatory 3. law abiding not present present at h Singh. Th that he is Learned co -7167-2026 -3 NDPS Act for registration of the F ed site, i.e., house of the accused, fol Tramadol Hydrochloride Pana Tramadol Hydrochloride Covi Tramadol Hydrochloride Teer Tramadol Hydrochloride Ripd Alprazolam Alpraseen 0.5 tabl Admittedly, the contraband . It is further the case of prose er, namely, Amandeep Singh was p cuments as Ramandeep Singh. eep did not rightly disclose his ident Apprehending his arrest, peti t of pre-arrest bail. The said applic e, Special Court, Ferozepur, vide order earlier petition bearing CRM-M- issed with some direction. This is th ipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petit biding citizen, has been falsely implic resent at the site. His brother Amand nt at home, was forcibly made to app h. Though, the police officials were he is not Ramandeep Singh, but no ned counsel next contends that even 3- the FIR. When they reached at th d, following was recovered:- Panadole Tablets - 330 Covitaldol-100 SR 3 240 Teerseen-SR tabs - 550 Ripdol tablets - 200 tablets - 360 and falls within the 8commerci rosecution that the brother of prese as present at the site, who signed a . Thus, for reasons best know identity and was arrested at the site. t, petitioner moved an application fo application was dismissed by learne e order dated 12.12.2025. Aggrieved o -2827-2026 was filed, which wa s is the present 2nd petition for grant o e petitioner contends that petitioner, implicated in the present case. He wa mandeep Singh, who incidentally wa to append his signatures as Ramandee were requested and were made awa ut no heed was paid to these reques t even the Gram Panchayat of villag at the ercial resent ed all nown, site. tion for learned ieved of ich was grant of ioner, a He was ally was andeep e aware request. village GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Megha Rai apprehende that custod recovered f petitioner is the Investig 4. State couns by learned this score dismissal. that despite before lear authorities petitioner w contraband team visite recovered. introduced fact he was police auth Singh does petitioner -7167-2026 -4 ha Rai Uttar has clarified in writing ehended from the spot. It is further t custodial interrogation of petitioner is ered from his possession. Nonethel ioner is ready and willing to join inves nvestigating Officer. Per contra, while opposing t counsel contends that no changed ci arned counsel for petitioner necessitat score alone, as per learned State co issal. Further, the defiant attitude of p despite having been directed by this re learned trial Court, he did not do rities have not been able to catch hold It is further the contention ioner was named by the secret infor aband to young kids. Relying upon visited the house from where hu ered. Police team also found a duced himself as Ramandeep Singh, i he was Amandeep Singh (brother of p e authorities forced Amandeep Singh h does not appeal to common sense. F oner is needed to find out the source 4- riting that present petitioner was n rther the contention of learned couns ner is not needed, for nothing is to b netheless, being a law abiding citize investigation as and when called for b ing the request for grant of bail, learne ged circumstance has been pointed o essitating the filing of 2nd petition. O tate counsel, present petition deserve e of petitioner is apparent from the fa this Court to surrender within 7 day ot do so. Worst still, even the polic h hold of him. ention of learned State counsel th t informer as being habitual of sellin upon the said information, the raidin re huge quantity of contraband wa nd a young man at the house, wh ingh, i.e., present petitioner, whereas er of petitioner). Plea of petitioner th Singh to affix signatures as Ramandee nse. Further, custodial interrogation o source from where the contraband ha was not counsel is to be citizen, d for by learned nted out ion. On eserves the fact 7 days e police sel that selling raiding nd was se, who ereas in ner that andeep ation of and had GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- been purch modus oper 5. documents. 6. be filed onl the dismiss U.P. 1978 as under:- 2080, this C -7167-2026 -5 purchased, who all are involved in t operandi etc. Dismissal of petition h Heard learned counsel for ments. It is settled that second petition led only if there has been substantial c ismissal of the first one. In Babu Si 978 AIR (Supreme Court) 527, the - <&&&&&&&But an order does not necessarily preciud giving more materials, furth considerations. While we s circumstance, we cannot acce barred from second considera direction is not a conclus reconsideration is not over tu view, we entertain the applica and con.= In Manjinder Kaur vs. State , this Court has held as follows:- <2. The question, therefore, and answered is "whether application under Section 438 first one filed by the petitioner 5- d in this illegal business, what is the tition has been prayed for. l for the parties and perused th etition for grant of anticipatory bail ca ntial change in the circumstances sinc u Singh and others vs. The State o , the Hon9ble Supreme Court has he rder refusing an application for ba ciude another, on a later occasio further, developments and differe e surely must set store by th accede to the faint plea that we ar ideration' at a later stage. An interi clusive adjudication, and update er turning an earlier negation. In th plication and evaluate the merits pr tate of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Hera re, which requires to be considere ether a second anticipatory ba 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when th oner has been withdrawn?" is their sed the bail can es since tate of has held r bail asion, fferent y this e are, nterim dated In this its pro erald idered bail en the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2021(1) RC -7167-2026 -6 xxxx xxxx 12. We have already held th anticipatory bail application w such an application has been by passing a speaking order. application, it can be said th under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subsequent bail application w on the ground that some ne change in circumstances developments such as arrest o bail granted to co-accused, di details, new documents or illn not be maintainable on a plea earlier occasion failed to co material on record or that accused was not taken, agitate However, the second/subseque 438 Cr.P.C. would be mainta material and substantive ch circumstances of the case due In G.R. Ananda Babu vs. Th ) RCR Criminal) 843, the Hon9ble S <&&&&&..The specious rea cannot be invoked for success once it is rejected by a speakin 6- xxxx ld that second/subsequent/successiv ion would not be maintainable whe een dismissed by the Court on meri der. Further qua the anticipatory ba id that once a first bail applicatio .C. stand withdrawn, a second o on would not be maintainable mere e new inconsequential and cosmet es has/have come about, furth est of co-accused or main accused o d, different considerations, some mo r illness of the accused. It would als plea or ground that the Court on th o consider any particular aspect o hat any point then available to th itated or pressed before the Court. equent bail application under Sectio intainable only if there is substanti e change in the fact situation an due to subsequent events or in law." s. The State of Tamil Nadu & anr n9ble Supreme Court has held as under s reasons of change in circumstanc cessive anticipatory bail application eaking order and that too by the sam essive where merits ry bail cation nd or erely smetic urther sed or more d also on the ect or to the ection tantial n and aw." anr., under: tances ations, same GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. changed cir the grant of named in selling/purc team raided his brother signatures a The plea o signatures appears to b embarrassin interrogatio contraband what is thei 8. failed to m entitling him 9. dismissed. 24.02.2026 gbs -7167-2026 -7 Judge." Here in the instant case, pe ged circumstance. Even otherwise, th rant of this extraordinary relief of pre d in the secret information a g/purchasing contraband. Based on raided his house and recovered huge rother Amandeep Singh, who was p tures as Ramandeep Singh and thus plea of petitioner that his brother tures as Ramandeep Singh has not f ars to be last minute effort on his (Peti rrassing position in which he (P) rogation of petitioner is needed to fin aband had been purchased, who all are is their modus operandi etc. In view of the detailed discu d to make out a case of exceptional ling him for the grant of this extra ordin Thus, finding no merit in the in issed. .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 7- se, petitioner failed to point out a ise, the facts of the case do not warra of pre-arrest bail to petitioner, who wa ion as being person habitual o d on the said information, the polic huge quantity of contraband. Furthe was present at the site, appended h thus, did not disclose his real identit other was forcibly made to affix h not found favour with the Court an etitioner9s) part to wriggle out of th e (P) is placed. Further, custodi to find out the source from where th all are involved in this illegal busines discussion made above, petitioner ha tional depravity/hardship in his favou a ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. n the instant petition, the same is hereb (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No out any warrant ho was tual of e police Further, ded his identity. ffix his and ut of the ustodial here the usiness, ner has favour s hereby NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document