CRM-M-18128 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 236 Rajdeep Singh U.T., Chandigarh CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. registered under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 West Sector 11, Chandigarh. The first petition, bearing 42136-2024 2. petition are that on 24.05.2024, the petitioner along with co Gagandeep Singh @ Mani was apprehended by a police party headed by SI Imroz Man and recovery of 9 petitioner No. 1, whereas recovery of from the co formalities, 18128-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajdeep Singh Versus U.T., Chandigarh CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. registered under Sections 20 and 29 of Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Sector 11, Chandigarh. The first petition, bearing 2024, was dismissed by this Court on 18.11.2024. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 24.05.2024, the petitioner along with co Gagandeep Singh @ Mani was apprehended by a police party headed by SI Imroz Man and recovery of 968 grams of petitioner No. 1, whereas recovery of 952 the co-accused. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court and presently, the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18128-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent MANISHA BATRA Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 68 dated 24.05.2024 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. The first petition, bearing number CRM-M , was dismissed by this Court on 18.11.2024. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 24.05.2024, the petitioner along with co-accused Gagandeep Singh @ Mani was apprehended by a police party headed by SI grams of Charas was effected from 952 grams of Charas was effected After completion of necessary investigation and usual was presented before the Court and presently, the 25 (O&M) 19.05.2025 has been filed by the 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 24.05.2024, Narcotic Drugs and Station M- Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present sed Gagandeep Singh @ Mani was apprehended by a police party headed by SI was effected from was effected After completion of necessary investigation and usual was presented before the Court and presently, the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.19 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18128 petitioner along with co mentioned offences. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. planted upon him. have been recovered from the petitioner does not fall under commercial quantity. The recovery effected from the aforesaid co added to bring it within the ambit of commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amarsingh 550. It is further argued that petitioner is not a ground to deny him the concession of bail. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Co trial is likely to take time. The useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Chandigarh. It is submitted therein and learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as there are serious allegations against him. He was apprehended along with the co accused whi Trial is going on at a proper pace. The petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature. dismissed. 18128-2025 (O&M) along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offences. Learned counsel for the pet petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. planted upon him. Even otherwise, the quantity of the contraband shown to have been recovered from the petitioner does not fall under commercial ty. The recovery effected from the aforesaid co added to bring it within the ambit of commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State It is further argued that pendency of one more case against the petitioner is not a ground to deny him the concession of bail. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Co trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report has been file Chandigarh. It is submitted therein and learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as there are serious allegations against him. He was apprehended along with the co accused while keeping in his possession of the aforementioned contraband. Trial is going on at a proper pace. The petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. -2- facing trial for commission of aforesaid Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. False recovery has been Even otherwise, the quantity of the contraband shown to have been recovered from the petitioner does not fall under commercial ty. The recovery effected from the aforesaid co-accused cannot be added to bring it within the ambit of commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat : 2005(7) SCC pendency of one more case against the petitioner is not a ground to deny him the concession of bail. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Conclusion of petitioner is in custody since 24.05.2024. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report has been filed by the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. It is submitted therein and learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as there are serious allegations against him. He was apprehended along with the co le keeping in his possession of the aforementioned contraband. Trial is going on at a proper pace. The petitioner is involved in one more It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be facing trial for commission of aforesaid itioner has argued that the False recovery has been Even otherwise, the quantity of the contraband shown to have been recovered from the petitioner does not fall under commercial accused cannot be added to bring it within the ambit of commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme jarat : 2005(7) SCC pendency of one more case against the petitioner is not a ground to deny him the concession of bail. Investigation nclusion of . No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, U.T., Chandigarh. It is submitted therein and learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as there are serious allegations against him. He was apprehended along with the co- le keeping in his possession of the aforementioned contraband. Trial is going on at a proper pace. The petitioner is involved in one more It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.19 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18128 5. length and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. named co- recovery of 968 grams of 952 grams of the contraband individually recovered from the petitioner and co does not fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. ratio of law as laid down in of debate as to whether the recovery effected from the co taken into consideration against the present petitioner commercial qu only at the final conclusion of trial after appreciating the entire material and evidence placed on record before it. 24.05.2024. been completed and challan has been filed. A perusal of the status report reveals that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far, which means the conclusion of trial time. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner in custody anymore. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 18128-2025 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the above -accused was apprehended by the police party on 24.05.2024 and recovery of 968 grams of Charas was effected from the petitioner, whereas 952 grams of Charas was recovered from the co the contraband individually recovered from the petitioner and co does not fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. ratio of law as laid down in Amarsingh’s case (supra) of debate as to whether the recovery effected from the co taken into consideration against the present petitioner commercial quantity and the same can be decided by the only at the final conclusion of trial after appreciating the entire material and evidence placed on record before it. The petitioner is in custody since 24.05.2024.He is stated to be on bail in other case. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. A perusal of the status report reveals that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far, which means the conclusion of trial Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to -3- sel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the above accused was apprehended by the police party on 24.05.2024 and was effected from the petitioner, whereas was recovered from the co-accused. The quantity of the contraband individually recovered from the petitioner and co-accused does not fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. Hence, in view of s case (supra), it will be a question of debate as to whether the recovery effected from the co-accused can be taken into consideration against the present petitioner to bring it under and the same can be decided by the learned trial Court only at the final conclusion of trial after appreciating the entire material The petitioner is in custody since other case. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. A perusal of the status report reveals that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far, which means the conclusion of trial is likely to take Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I am of the no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty However, it will be open for the prosecution to sel for the parties at considerable As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the above accused was apprehended by the police party on 24.05.2024 and was effected from the petitioner, whereas accused. The quantity of accused view of , it will be a question accused can be to bring it under trial Court only at the final conclusion of trial after appreciating the entire material The petitioner is in custody since other case. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. A perusal of the status report reveals that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have take Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I am of the no useful purpose would be served by keeping the is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty However, it will be open for the prosecution to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.19 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18128 apply for cancellation other subsequent case. 7. only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case 19.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 18128-2025 (O&M) apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner other subsequent case. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 19.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- petitioner is found involved in any It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No is found involved in any It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall (MANISHA BATRA) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.19 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document