Dismissed¶8

Ranjit Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2026CRM-M/4882/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-4882-2026(O&M); Ranjit Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Subhas Mehla; decided 12.05.2026; regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.28 dated 09.04.2025; Police Station City Raikot, Ludhiana; Section 22 NDPS Act; Etizolam; 40 loose tablets; 5.68 gms; commercial quantity; Section 37 NDPS Act; Section 50 NDPS Act violation; independent witness; custody since 11.04.2025; criminal antecedents; bail dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Recovery allegedly effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner contained 5.68 gms of Etizolam, which is more than double the prescribed limit of 'commercial quantity', being a ground for refusing bail. ¶6(i)

Ranjit Singh @ Manga Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(235) CRM-M-4882-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION:12.05.2026

¶3

Ranjit Singh @ Manga VERSUS

¶4

........Petitioner

¶5

State of Punjab .........Respondent

¶6

CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶7

Present Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***

¶8

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

¶9

This is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short – ‘the BNSS’) seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.28 dated 09.04.2025, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station City Raikot, District Ludhiana.

¶10

Allegations against the petitioner are that on 09.04.2025 at about 07:50 PM, he was found in conscious possession of 40 loose tablets containing salt Etizolam.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the following grounds;

¶12

i. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case;

¶13

ii. That the alleged recovery was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather the same was allegedly effected from a public place;

¶14

MAMTA 2026.05.29 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-4882-2026(O&M)

¶16

¶17

iii. That no independent witness was joined by the investigating agency at the time of alleged search and recovery proceedings;

¶18

iv. That the alleged search and recovery were conducted in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; and

¶19

v. That the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2025, i.e. for the last more than one year.

¶20

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab, appears and files

¶21

Custody Certificate dated 11.05.2026 of the petitioner and the same is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the bail petition on the following grounds:

¶22

I That the petitioner was apprehended with 40 loose tablets containing salt Etizolam which falls within the category of ‘commercial quantity’ and

¶23

ii That the petitioner is not having clean and clear antecedents as he is involved in two more cases.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Keeping in view the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:

¶26

i. That recovery allegedly effected from conscious possession of petitioner contains 5.68 gms of Etizolam, which is more than double the prescribed limit of ‘commercial quantity’;

¶27

ii. That the trial is already in progress and there is no undue delay in the proceedings;

¶28

iii. That there is no ground to dilute the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the present case;

¶29

MAMTA 2026.05.29 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-4882-2026(O&M)

¶31

¶32

iv. That the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, as he is involved in two other cases, i.e. one under the NDPS Act and another under the IPC.

¶33

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed .

¶34

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

12.05.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶37

MAMTA 2026.05.29 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ranjit Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Vs State of Haryana

Malkit Masih Alias Raja Vs State of Punjab

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Yash Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Jashanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dalip Kumar Vs State of Punjab