CRM-M-51681- 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sunil Kumar State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. First Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025, under Sections 304 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 309(6), 111 and 317(2) of BNS were added later on and Section 304 of BNS was deleted subsequently), regi Khanna. 2. The present FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025 was registered at Police Station City Khanna on the statement of complainant Mahinder Singh. As per the prosecution version, on 09.04.2025 at about 12:00 returning home on his motorcycle after closing his liquor vend and was carrying sale proceeds amounting to about 12:40 A.M., five unknown persons riding on two motorcycles allege started chasing him. Upon reaching near a flyover and turning towards the residential area, the assailants encircled him and allegedly snatched a bag -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) First Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha for granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025, under Sections 304 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 309(6), 111 and 317(2) of BNS were added later on and Section 304 of BNS was deleted subsequently), registered at Police Station City Khanna, District The present FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025 was registered at Police Station City Khanna on the statement of complainant Mahinder Singh. As per the prosecution version, on 09.04.2025 at about 12:00 returning home on his motorcycle after closing his liquor vend and was carrying sale proceeds amounting to ₹38,000/-. When he reached near Abadi Khanna at about 12:40 A.M., five unknown persons riding on two motorcycles allege started chasing him. Upon reaching near a flyover and turning towards the residential area, the assailants encircled him and allegedly snatched a bag -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. First Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha for granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025, under Sections 304 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 309(6), 111 and 317(2) of BNS were added later on and Section 304 of stered at Police Station City Khanna, District The present FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025 was registered at Police Station City Khanna on the statement of complainant Mahinder Singh. As per the prosecution version, on 09.04.2025 at about 12:00 midnight, the complainant was returning home on his motorcycle after closing his liquor vend and was carrying When he reached near Abadi Khanna at about 12:40 A.M., five unknown persons riding on two motorcycles allege started chasing him. Upon reaching near a flyover and turning towards the residential area, the assailants encircled him and allegedly snatched a bag First Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha for granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025, under Sections 304 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 309(6), 111 and 317(2) of BNS were added later on and Section 304 of stered at Police Station City Khanna, District The present FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025 was registered at Police Station City Khanna on the statement of complainant Mahinder Singh. As per the midnight, the complainant was returning home on his motorcycle after closing his liquor vend and was carrying When he reached near Abadi Khanna at about 12:40 A.M., five unknown persons riding on two motorcycles allegedly started chasing him. Upon reaching near a flyover and turning towards the residential area, the assailants encircled him and allegedly snatched a bag TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51681- containing ₹38,000/ 18826) and fled from the spot. 3. During investigation, the present petitioner Sunil Kumar and other co accused were arrested on 14.04.2025. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 304 and 3(5) of the BNS, Sections 309(6), 111 and deleted. The matter is presently under investigation/trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the not named in the FIR and his name surfaced subsequently without any cogent material. No test identification parade was conducted and there is no reliable identification of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months and the trial is likely to take considerable time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far, though the charge sheet has already been presented. 5. It is also submitted that similarly placed c Singh, Roopchand, Azad Singh and Dipi bail by the co- petitioner is also entitled to the concession of regular bail. 6. Notice o 7. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab accepts notice and opposes the present petition the petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the offence is grave in nature. However, learned State counsel has fairly stated that the petitioner is in custody for the last approximately 10 months. It is also admitted that though the charge sheet -2025 (O&M) ₹38,000/- along with his Samsung mobile phone (SIM No. 98780 18826) and fled from the spot. During investigation, the present petitioner Sunil Kumar and other co accused were arrested on 14.04.2025. Initially, the case was registered under ections 304 and 3(5) of the BNS, however, after investigation, offences under Sections 309(6), 111 and 317(2) of BNS were added and Section 304 BNS was deleted. The matter is presently under investigation/trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the not named in the FIR and his name surfaced subsequently without any cogent material. No test identification parade was conducted and there is no reliable identification of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months and the trial is likely to take considerable time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far, though the charge sheet has already been presented. It is also submitted that similarly placed c hand, Azad Singh and Dipish Kumar have already been released on -ordinate Benches and, therefore, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of regular bail. Notice of motion. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab accepts notice and opposes the present petition on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the offence is grave in nature. , learned State counsel has fairly stated that the petitioner is in custody for the last approximately 10 months. It is also admitted that though the charge sheet -2- along with his Samsung mobile phone (SIM No. 98780 During investigation, the present petitioner Sunil Kumar and other co accused were arrested on 14.04.2025. Initially, the case was registered under however, after investigation, offences under 317(2) of BNS were added and Section 304 BNS was deleted. The matter is presently under investigation/trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced subsequently without any cogent material. No test identification parade was conducted and there is no reliable identification of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months and the trial is likely to take considerable time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far, though the It is also submitted that similarly placed co-accused namely Gurdeep sh Kumar have already been released on and, therefore, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of regular bail. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab accepts notice and opposes the on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the offence is grave in nature. , learned State counsel has fairly stated that the petitioner is in custody for the last approximately 10 months. It is also admitted that though the charge sheet along with his Samsung mobile phone (SIM No. 98780- During investigation, the present petitioner Sunil Kumar and other co- accused were arrested on 14.04.2025. Initially, the case was registered under however, after investigation, offences under 317(2) of BNS were added and Section 304 BNS was Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced subsequently without any cogent material. No test identification parade was conducted and there is no reliable identification of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months and the trial is likely to take considerable time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far, though the sed namely Gurdeep sh Kumar have already been released on and, therefore, on the principle of parity, the Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab accepts notice and opposes the on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the offence is grave in nature. , learned State counsel has fairly stated that the petitioner is in custody for the last approximately 10 months. It is also admitted that though the charge sheet TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51681- has been presented, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Learned State counsel ha already been granted bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been presented, but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. The trial is, thus, likely to take time. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name does not find mention in the initial reference to him in any supplementary statement of the complainant placed on record. Admittedly, no test identification parade has been conducted in the present case. Furthermore, four similarly placed co concession of regular bail. On the ground of parity alone, the petitioner cannot be treated differently in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance brought to the notice of this Court. 10. Without commenting upon the me custody period, the stage of trial, and the fact that similarly placed co already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 11. According petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. -2025 (O&M) has been presented, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Learned State counsel has further admitted that four similarly placed co already been granted bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months. The investigation is the charge sheet has already been presented, but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. The trial is, thus, likely to take time. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name does not find mention in the initial version of the complainant and there is no reference to him in any supplementary statement of the complainant placed on record. Admittedly, no test identification parade has been conducted in the present case. Furthermore, four similarly placed co-accused concession of regular bail. On the ground of parity alone, the petitioner cannot be treated differently in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance brought to the notice of this Court. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and considering the custody period, the stage of trial, and the fact that similarly placed co already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present regular bail application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. -3- has been presented, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Learned s further admitted that four similarly placed co-accused have I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months. The investigation is the charge sheet has already been presented, but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. The trial is, thus, likely to take time. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name version of the complainant and there is no reference to him in any supplementary statement of the complainant placed on record. Admittedly, no test identification parade has been conducted in the present accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail. On the ground of parity alone, the petitioner cannot be treated differently in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance brought to the rits of the case and considering the custody period, the stage of trial, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves ly, the present regular bail application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial has been presented, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Learned accused have I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months. The investigation is the charge sheet has already been presented, but no prosecution It is not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name version of the complainant and there is no reference to him in any supplementary statement of the complainant placed on record. Admittedly, no test identification parade has been conducted in the present have already been granted the concession of regular bail. On the ground of parity alone, the petitioner cannot be treated differently in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance brought to the rits of the case and considering the accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves ly, the present regular bail application is allowed. The furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51681- 12. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence led before it. 13. All pending miscellane February 24, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) is, however, clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence led before it. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- is, however, clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence led before it. ous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No is, however, clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court ous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document