Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-21527-2026 1
240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21527-2026
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, A.A.G., Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present second petition has been filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.46 dated 11.04.2025, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while on patrolling on 11.04.2025, when reached Usma T-point near village Thathian Mahant Naushehra Pannua, a man was seen coming and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed and took out something heave, wrapped in a wax envelope from right pocket of his trouser and threw it in the grass on the road side. On suspicion, he was apprehended by the police party and on asking, he disclosed his name to be Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha (petitioner herein). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the envelope being thrown by him and thus, search was conducted. On conducting the search, 550 white coloured intoxicant tablets, were recovered. He failed to produce any license regarding POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21527-2026 2 possession of the same and thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on spot. The investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of FSL report, challan was presented, charges were framed and on framing of charges, trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court, Tarn Taran vide order dated 03.07.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-44205-2025 but the same was withdrawn on 10.09.2025. Hence, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present second petition for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however, no independent witness was joined by the investigating agency. He submits that the conscious possession is also not proved. He submits that there is blatant violation of provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act in conducting the search. He submits that the alleged recovery is of 550 intoxicant tablets weighing 261.25 grams of Tramadol, whereas the commercial quantity is above 250 grams. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that on due compliance of provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act, the recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He submit that the alleged recovery of 550 tablets was found to be containing 261.25 grams of Tramadol, which falls under the commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21527-2026 3 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the present case. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner is 550 intoxicant tablets containing 261.25 grams of Tramadol, and the commercial quantity is above 250 grams. The alleged recovery in the present case has been effected from a public place. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year and 11 days as on 23.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 02 more cases. As submitted before this Court, out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined till date.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the speedy trial is the fundamental right of every accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-
19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21527-2026 4 record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. xxxxx
21. .....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
22. xxxxx
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal"22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner POOJA SHARMA is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21527-2026 5 satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. In case the bail bonds are not furnished by the petitioner during the period of 07 days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in the present case.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
POOJA SHARMA
2026.04.24 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document