[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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
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withdrawn on 10.09.2025.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
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
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
is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
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
