[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rinku vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2026
CRM-M-72696-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
121
CRM-M-72696-2025
Decided on : 06.03.2026
Rinku . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner,
during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising
out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police Station District
Petitioner(s) No.
Rinku 70 25.05.2025 21-B, 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985 Sultanwind Amritsar
[S. 29 of NDPS Act, added later
on]
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a police party, while on
patrolling duty, apprehended one Sewa Singh on the spot, who was carrying
a polythene bag in his left hand containing 47.95 grams of heroin, along
with a cash amount of ₹1,700/-. After his arrest, he disclosed the name of the
present petitioner - Rinku. Thereafter, when the petitioner was arrested,
08.24 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from his possession.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
1 of 4
in custody since 30.06.2025 and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is further submitted that the alleged quantity of heroin recovered
from the petitioner is only marginally above the small quantity and far below
the threshold of commercial quantity, i.e., 250 grams of heroin, as prescribed
under the NDPS Act.
It is further argued that the petitioner was already known to the
police party on account of his alleged involvement in other cases and,
therefore, he once again has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Except for the disclosure statement of the co-accused Sewa Singh, there is
no other substantive evidence available with the prosecution to connect the
petitioner with the alleged crime.
Additionally, learned counsel submits that after the alleged
disclosure statement made by the co-accused Sewa Singh, none of the
statutory provisions envisaged under the NDPS Act, such as compliance of
Sections 42 and 50 or independent verification of the investigation qua the
role of the petitioner, were complied with. Therefore, it is argued that the
entire proceedings are not sustainable in the eyes of law. On these grounds,
prayer has been made for grant of the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status
report and custody certificate dated 05.03.2026 in Court today, which are
taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at
appropriate place.
Copies thereof have been handed over to the counsel for the
petitioner.
2 of 4
5. Learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing the prayer
for bail, submits that keeping in view the nature and gravity of the
allegations as well as the role attributed to the petitioner, he does not deserve
the concession of bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved
in other criminal cases and, therefore, there is every likelihood that in case
he is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities. In support
of his submissions, learned State counsel refers to paragraph No.12 of the
status report. However, the other factual assertions, as noticed here-above,
have not been disputed by learned State counsel.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2025. The
alleged quantity of heroin recovered from the petitioner is only 08.24 grams,
which is slightly above the small quantity and far below the commercial
quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. It is also noticeable that the
petitioner has been implicated in the present case primarily on the basis of
the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Sewa Singh.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and
considering the incarceration period already undergone inside jail by the
petitioner as well as the fact that the quantity involved, does not fall under
the category of commercial quantity, this Court is of the considered view
that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful
purpose.
Therefore, in view of the totality of the circumstances, this
Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the
3 of 4
petitioner.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
bail/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.
8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly
or indirectly.
9. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is
expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on
record.
10. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly
found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be
cancelled.
11. Petition stands disposed of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
March 06, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
