Allowed¶27

Naman Khanna v. State of Punjab

Criminal bail – Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2025CRM-M/6868/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-6868-2025; High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Manisha Batra, J.; Naman Khanna v. State of Punjab; regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; NDPS Act Sections 21, 29 and 22; heroin 155 grams non-commercial quantity; FIR No. 118 dated 29.11.2024; Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar; co-accused Ridham Khanna; SI Mohan Lal; custody since 29.11.2024; prior conviction not a bar to bail; bail granted; Sumit Dua for petitioner; Sakshi Bakshi AAG for Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner Naman Khanna ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned; pending application, if any, rendered infructuous. ¶27

Naman Khanna Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrested in FIR No. 118 dated 29.11.2024 registered under Section 21 NDPS Act (Section 29 added later) at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar, after recovery of 155 grams of heroin, is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The petitioner's involvement in other cases cannot be considered a reason for denying the benefit of bail to him.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The recovery of 155 grams of heroin allegedly effected from the petitioner is of non-commercial quantity, and he has been in custody since 29.11.2024.

¶23

Key takeaways

The trial will obviously take time to conclude since the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.ratio¶27
Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, the period spent in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances, but without commenting on the merits, the bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal bail – Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS – FIR No. 118 dated 29.11.2024, Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar, under Section 21 NDPS Act (Section 29 added later) – Alleged recovery of 155 grams of heroin from petitioner's rented accommodation, a non-commercial quantity – Petitioner in custody since 29.11.2024 – Petitioner stated to be involved in one more similar case and previously convicted under Section 22 NDPS Act – Held: involvement in other cases cannot be considered a reason for denying benefit of bail; trial to take time as prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail subject to personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned (Manisha Batra, J.).

¶1

CRM-M-6868-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6868-2025 Reserved on: 4^th September, 2025 Pronounced on: 10th September, 2025

Naman Khanna

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

Present: Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 118 dated 29.11.2024 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS’) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar.

¶15

As per the allegations, on 29.11.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that the petitioner and his brother Ridham Khanna were indulged in supply of contraband and Naman Khanna(petitioner) used to sell it to its customers after receiving the same in his rented accommodation from his brother i.e. co-accused Ridham Khanna. It was also informed that they could be apprehended with substantial quantity of heroin , if raided immediately. Believing the secret information to be true, a ruqa

¶16

Parveen Sharma 2025.09.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-6868-2025

¶18

¶19

was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. A police party headed by SI Mohan Lal reached at the rented accommodation of the petitioner, one white envelop containing 155 grams of heroin, 10 small plastic envelops and one electric weighing scale, were recovered. The petitioner was formally arrested. Subsequently, co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

¶20

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been in custody since 29.11.2024. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The police officials failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law at the time of investigation. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the prosecution version. Trial will take time to conclude. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶22

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has gone through the record carefully.

¶23

The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the business of supplying heroin and recovery of 155 grams of heroin is alleged to have been effected from him which is of non-commercial quantity. He has been in custody since 29.11.2024. He is stated to be involved in one more case of similar nature and in another case, he had been convicted under Section 22

¶24

Parveen Sharma 2025.09.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-6868-2025

¶26

¶27

of NDPS Act. However, his involvement in other cases cannot considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to the petitioner. Trial will obviously take time to conclude since the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the period spent by him in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶28

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

¶29

[MANISHA BATRA]

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

10th September , 2025 Parveen Sharma

¶32

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶33

Parveen Sharma 2025.09.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Naman Khanna v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Khanna v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barjinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Panipat Hire Purchase and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Kumar

Mohit Vs State of Punjab

Jaskaran Singh Vs Mani Ram and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Raghbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others