Rajeev Grover @ Mangi Vs State of Punjab

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

¶15

out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

¶16

Name of FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Petitioner(s) No.
Rajeev Grover @ Mangi 150	12.05.2025	22, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985	City Hoshiarpur	Hoshiarpu r

¶17

In the present case, recovery of 58 grams of intoxicant substance in powder form was allegedly effected from the possession of the petitioner. On

¶18

the previous date of hearing, i.e., on 26.11.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:–

¶19

“i) Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 150 dated 12.05.2025, registered under Sections 2, 29, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City, District Hoshiarpur.

¶20

ii) As per allegations, 58 grams of intoxicant substances in powder form were allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

¶21

iii) It is noticed that petitioner is in custody in the present case for the past

¶22

JAWALA RAM 2026.02.09 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-40538-2025

¶24

2 -

¶25

four months and one day. Till date, FSL report has not been received by the prosecution.

¶26

iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the FSL report concludes that the contraband is heroin, quantity would be much less than the maximum non-commercial quantity, i.e., 250 grams.

¶27

v) Let a specific status report be filed by the respondent/State stating the reasons for the delay in the preparation of the FSL report, along with the material evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. vi) List on 06.02.2026 vii) Meanwhile, petitioner is ordered to be released on interim 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.”

¶28

Today, at the very outset, learned State counsel submits that the FSL report has now been received and as per the said report, the recovered substance has been found to be Tramadol Hydrochloride and not heroin.

¶29

Besides, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 05.02.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is shown to be involved in many other cases, both under the NDPS Act as well as under other provisions of the IPC, Excise Act etc. Thus, it is submitted that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and consequently, seeks dismissal of the present petition. However, the other factual assertions, as noticed here-above, have not been disputed by the learned State counsel.

¶31

In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶32

JAWALA RAM 2026.02.09 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-40538-2025 - 3 -

¶34

submits that in many of the said cases, the petitioner is either on bail or has already undergone the sentence period or has even been discharged.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material available on record.

¶36

In view of the fact that the intoxicant powder recovered from the petitioner is 58 grams and as per the FSL report now received, the recovered substance is Tramadol Hydrochloride, which is much less than the threshold of 250 grams, i.e., the maximum limit of non-commercial quantity, and further that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of about four months, having been incarcerated earlier due to non-submission of the FSL report, continued detention of the petitioner does not appear to be justified at this stage.

¶37

Further, charges are yet to be framed by the prosecution against the petitioner. So far as the other cases are concerned, the mere pendency of certain cases, in which the petitioner is stated to be either on bail or has already undergone sentence, cannot by itself be a ground to deny the concession of bail in the present case, particularly when the quantity involved is admittedly non-commercial.

¶38

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that; (i) the alleged recovery from the petitioner is only 58 grams; (ii) as per the FSL report the recovered substance has been found to be Tramadol Hydrochloride, which falls within non-commercial quantity; (iii) petitioner has already remained in custody for about four months; (iv) trial is yet to commence and charges are yet to be framed, and; (v) matter is based on documentary and official evidence, which is already in possession

¶39

JAWALA RAM 2026.02.09 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-40538-2025 - 4 -

¶41

of the prosecution, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period.

¶42

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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.

¶43

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶44

Any of the discussion done and recorded here-above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶45

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.

¶46

Petition stands disposed of .

¶47

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶49

February 06, 2026 J.Ram

¶50

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶51

JAWALA RAM 2026.02.09 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rajeev Grover @ Mangi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Grover @ Mangi 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

Rohit Alias Gullu Vs State of Haryana

Rajat Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Jagga Vs State of Haryana

Neeraj Kumar Chaubey Vs State of Haryana

Gurjeet Singh Alias Geeta Vs State of Punjab

Akashdeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.