CRM-M-37713-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-37713-2026 Decided on :17.07.2026 Bikramjit Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 102 dated 13.05.2026, under Sections 21-C/25/29, 61-85 of NDPS Act, 1985 and offence under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 20185) added vide G.D. No.34 ated 01.06.2026 (P-2), registered at Police Station Anti-Narcotic Force (ANTF), District STF Wing, SAS Nagar. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, FIR No. 102 dated 13.05.2026, under Sections 21-C, 25, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, was registered at Police Station ANTF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, against accused Rajminder Singh @ Raja, from whom 2.165 kg of heroin was allegedly RASHMI 2026.07.17 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37713-2026 2 recovered. Subsequently, a further recovery of 5.165 kg of heroin was also effected from the same accused, Rajminder Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations are that present petitioner, who is neither a Government employee nor in any way connected with the Police Department, received a sum of ₹5,00,000/- for allegedly securing favour for the accused and his wife in the aforesaid NDPS case. It is further alleged that said amount was arranged by Gagandeep Kaur, wife of Rajminder Singh, by selling her gold ornaments, and that she handed over the amount to the present petitioner on the same day. Thereafter, when she demanded the return of the said amount, petitioner allegedly returned it to Gagandeep Kaur through one Major Singh. 4. Mr. Vineet Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that neither any corroborative evidence has been collected during the investigation; nor has any part of the alleged bribe amount been recovered. He contends that, even if the allegations are accepted as true, apart from the alleged purpose for which the amount was paid, allegations do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further argues that no recovery has been effected, no trap proceedings were ever conducted pursuant to any complaint against the petitioner, and there is no audio recording or any other evidence to show that the petitioner demanded the alleged amount. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for the grant of regular bail. RASHMI 2026.07.17 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37713-2026 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. However, he is unable to dispute the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly with regard to the absence of any recovery of the alleged bribe amount, the lack of corroborative evidence, and the fact that no trap proceedings or other independent material have been brought on record to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or making any observation on the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material presently available with the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody. Petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2026, and any further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence RASHMI 2026.07.17 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37713-2026 4 available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 7. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 17.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.17 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document