CRM-M-5342-2025(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CRM-M-5342-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2025 Angrej Singh alias Geja ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Present: - Ms.Divya Narula, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC). Mr.Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. 1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.385 dated 16.11.2022 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (deleted subsequently), at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on receipt of a secret information that the petitioner and co-accused were travelling in their car after collecting consignment of explosive and arms from Pakistani GIANENDER KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5342-2025(O&M) [2] smugglers, the FIR was registered. A naka was laid at the disclosed place and the vehicle was intercepted. The petitioner was on the wheels and his co-accused was sitting next to him. On checking of Car, Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and one hand grenade were recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. She contends that the currency notes and the grenade were recovered under the front seat of the car, which was allegedly occupied by co-accused Parkash Singh. The petitioner is behind bars since 20.11.2022. The investigation in the case is complete and challan stands presented. She further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Taking the Court to the status report, he has argued that the recovered bomb was defused by the In-charge of Bomb Disposal and Detection Team, Border Range, Amritsar and the dismantled hand grenade and its parts were converted into different parcels. It was sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, SAS Nagar, which vide its report opined that the white powdery substance contained in parcel was Cyclonite (RDX), which is a highly explosive material and on explosion can cause damage to human life and property. He further submits that the said grenade was to be exploded by them at some busy place. He GIANENDER KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5342-2025(O&M) [3] further points out that the status report also mentions that during investigation, it was found that the recovered car was registered in the name of the petitioner. He submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and on his release, he may abscond or even again indulge in illegal/criminal activities. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is an habitual offender. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner was on the driving seat of the car when it was intercepted by the Police. The investigation has revealed that the petitioner and his co-accused are having links with Pakistani smuggler and they were found in conscious possession of one hand grenade and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, allegedly provided to them by the Pakistani smugglers. The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave and serious in nature. The forensic examination of the defused grenade found RDX therein, which is a highly explosive substance. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 GIANENDER KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5342-2025(O&M) [4] AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 and State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). 6. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, recovery of hand grenade containing Cyclonite (RDX), coupled with cash of Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly provided by the Pakistani smugglers, quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment upon the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition being bereft of any merit, is dismissed. September 26, 2025 ( RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ) gian JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GIANENDER KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document