Dismissed¶37

Ranjit Alias Gori v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2026CRM-M/3360/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS regular bail dismissed; commercial quantity heroin 400 grams; Section 37 NDPS bar; Section 483 BNSS 2023 fifth bail petition; speedy trial Article 21; direction to conclude prosecution evidence within three months; custody 02 years 05 months 01 day; antecedents other NDPS cases previous convict jail offences; non-joining of independent witness; Section 42 Section 50 NDPS compliance; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRM-M-3360-2026; Justice Virinder Aggarwal; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; however, the learned Trial Court directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the prosecution evidence within three months. ¶37

Ranjit Alias Gori Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail refused; however, the learned Trial Court directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the prosecution evidence within three months.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 298 dated 27.09.2023 under Section 21(C) NDPS Act, involving alleged recovery of 400 grams of heroin (commercial quantity), despite the restrictions of Section 37 NDPS Act. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

As the alleged recovery of 400 grams of heroin is of commercial quantity, the restrictions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to the consideration of the bail prayer.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶33

Key takeaways

Contentions of false implication, non-joining of independent witnesses and alleged non-compliance of statutory provisions are matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be examined in detail at the stage of consideration of bail.ratio¶33
The petitioner's stated involvement in other cases under the NDPS Act, his status as a previous convict and commission of jail offences are relevant considerations against grant of bail.ratio¶33
In view of the nature of allegations, the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, the Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Virinder Aggarwal, J., oral) — fifth regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 in FIR No. 298 dated 27.09.2023, Section 21(C) NDPS Act, PS Special Task Force, SAS Nagar; alleged recovery of 400 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) after search before a Gazetted Officer. Held: Section 37 NDPS restrictions attracted; Court not satisfied of reasonable grounds that petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence while on bail; contentions of false implication, non-joining of independent witnesses and statutory non-compliance deferred for trial; antecedents (other NDPS cases, previous convict, jail offences) weighed against bail. Bail refused. Noting custody of 02 years 05 months and 01 day and the speedy-trial right under Article 21, Trial Court directed to conclude prosecution evidence within three months. Four earlier bail applications stood dismissed as withdrawn. Case referred: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (reliance placed by counsel).

¶1

CRM-M-3360-2026

¶2

¶3

208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-3360-2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026

¶5

RANJIT ALIAS GORI ...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.

¶12

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The present fifth petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 298 dated 27.09.2023, registered under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Special Task Force, SAS Nagar, District STF Wing, Punjab, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

As per the prosecution version, on 27.09.2023, ASI Parminder Singh along with other officials of STF, Jalandhar Range, was present near Pathankot-Jammu GT Road, Bypass Pathankot, in connection with patrolling and checking of anti-social elements. At about 02:00 PM, a secret informer disclosed that the petitioner Ranjit @ Gori, who was allegedly involved in the sale of heroin, was standing near Dhaba Tandoori Bite, Sujanpur, on the service road, with heroin for the purpose of selling the same. The said information was reduced into writing and forwarded to the senior officers in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter,

¶15

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-3360-2026 2

¶17

the police party conducted a raid and apprehended the petitioner from the disclosed place. The petitioner was apprised of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, DSP Yogesh Kumar, PPS, STF, Jalandhar Range, was called at the spot. In the presence of the DSP, the petitioner was searched and allegedly 400 grams of heroin was recovered from the right pocket of the lower worn by him. The recovered contraband was sealed and taken into police possession through recovery memo. Consequently, FIR No. 298 dated 27.09.2023 under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Special Task Force, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery of contraband was effected from his conscious possession. It is contended that the prosecution story is highly improbable and the alleged recovery of 400 grams of heroin has been planted upon the petitioner.

¶19

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery was effected from a public place, however, no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, despite availability. It is argued that the police officials have falsely shown the recovery and the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their true spirit.

¶20

3.2 It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since September, 2023, the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. Earlier the petitioner has applied for grant of regular bail vide CRM-M-29405-2024, CRM-M-98202025, CRM-M-31462-2025 & CRM-M-58064-2025, which were dismissed

¶21

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM-M-3360-2026 3

¶23

as withdrawn. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. Learned counsel contends that the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion and continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.

¶24

3.3 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is not involved in the present offence and there is no material on record to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged contraband. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of trial.

¶25

Learned counsel further submits that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner violates the said mandate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI , (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶26

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions, according to which petitioner has already undergone sentence of 02 years 05 months and 01 day.

¶27

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that 400 grams of heroin, falling within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is contended that the recovery was effected after due compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act and in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Learned State counsel further submits that, in view of the commercial quantity involved, the rigours of Section 37

¶28

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CRM-M-3360-2026 4

¶30

of the NDPS Act are attracted. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act and, considering his antecedents and the seriousness of the allegations, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

¶31

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused

¶32

the record.

¶33

The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was apprehended and 400 grams of heroin, which falls within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, was allegedly recovered from his conscious possession. Since the alleged recovery is of commercial quantity, the restrictions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. At this stage, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding false implication, non-joining of independent witnesses and alleged non-compliance of statutory provisions are matters which require appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be examined in detail at the stage of consideration of bail. Further, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other cases under the NDPS Act and is also a previous convict and has also committed jail offences, which is also a relevant consideration while deciding the prayer for grant of bail. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this

¶34

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CRM-M-3360-2026

¶36

¶37

Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶38

However, it is well settled that the right to speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has already undergone sentence of 02 years 05 months and 01 day, and cannot be detained indefinitely. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the prosecution evidence within three months.

¶39

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶40

16.07.2026 kv

¶41

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶42

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.22 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Ranjit Alias Gori v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Alias Gori 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swatantra Singh Vs Vikas Bhardwaj and Another

Swatantra Singh Vs Monika Bhardwaj and Anr.

Swatantra Singh Vs Monika Bhardwaj and Another

Poonam Nurpuri Vs Rita

Maninder Pal Singh @ Maninder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Prince Kumar @ Prince Dholi Vs State of Punjab