CRM-M-69927- 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ashish Baghel State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Soeb Kha (thr Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana Mr. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 68 dated 31.03.2025, registered under Sections 127(2) and 309(4) of (1-B)(a) and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.03.2025, ASI Sanjeet received information regarding a Gurugram. Upon receiving the said information, ASI Sanjeet along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence where the complainant Mukesh Kumar, who was working at the said medical store, made a sta statement of the complainant, on 30.03.2025 at about 10:10 PM, three boys came to the medical store. Two of them were wearing helmets of green and black colour while the third boy was not wearing any helmet. One of them demanded certain -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Soeb Khan, Advocate for the petitioner rough Video Conferencing) Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana Mr. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier 439 Cr.P.C) bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 68 dated 31.03.2025, registered under Sections 127(2) and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 B)(a) and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.03.2025, ASI Sanjeet received information regarding a robbery at Sai Kunj Asha Medicare Store, Gurugram. Upon receiving the said information, ASI Sanjeet along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence where the complainant Mukesh Kumar, who was working at the said medical store, made a sta statement of the complainant, on 30.03.2025 at about 10:10 PM, three boys came to the medical store. Two of them were wearing helmets of green and black colour while the third boy was not wearing any helmet. One of them demanded certain -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69927-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU n, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the (earlier 439 Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 68 dated 31.03.2025, registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 B)(a) and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.03.2025, ASI robbery at Sai Kunj Asha Medicare Store, Gurugram. Upon receiving the said information, ASI Sanjeet along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence where the complainant Mukesh Kumar, who was working at the said medical store, made a statement. As per the statement of the complainant, on 30.03.2025 at about 10:10 PM, three boys came to the medical store. Two of them were wearing helmets of green and black colour while the third boy was not wearing any helmet. One of them demanded certain The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 68 dated 31.03.2025, registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.03.2025, ASI robbery at Sai Kunj Asha Medicare Store, Gurugram. Upon receiving the said information, ASI Sanjeet along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence where the complainant Mukesh tement. As per the statement of the complainant, on 30.03.2025 at about 10:10 PM, three boys came to the medical store. Two of them were wearing helmets of green and black colour while the third boy was not wearing any helmet. One of them demanded certain TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69927- medicines namely Zeptol etc. and when the complainant stated that the said medicines were not available, another boy demanded some other medicine. When the complainant started searching for the same, one of the boys pointed a country made pistol at him and persons took away the money lying in the cash counter and threatened to kill the complainant before fleeing from the spot. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR was registered. D petitioner Ashish Baghel was apprehended and it is alleged that a sum of Rs.13,000/-, a country at the time of occurrence were recovered from his pos allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were also recovered during the investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present c petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the same was registered against unknown persons. It is also contended that no specific amou has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. Learned counsel has further argued that no Test Identification Parade was ever conducted and there is no eyewitness to the allege incident. It is further submitted that the amount allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/ alleged occurrence. It is also argued that the pistol which has been shown to be recovered in the present case was actually handed over to the police by the co accused Ashutosh and not recovered from the conscious possession of the -2025 (O&M) medicines namely Zeptol etc. and when the complainant stated that the said medicines were not available, another boy demanded some other medicine. When the complainant started searching for the same, one of the boys pointed a country made pistol at him and closed the shutter of the shop. It is alleged that the accused persons took away the money lying in the cash counter and threatened to kill the complainant before fleeing from the spot. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner Ashish Baghel was apprehended and it is alleged that a sum of , a country-made pistol and the helmet allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were recovered from his pos allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were also recovered during the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present c petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the same was registered against unknown persons. It is also contended that no specific amou has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. Learned counsel has further argued that no Test Identification Parade was ever conducted and there is no eyewitness to the allege incident. It is further submitted that the amount allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/-, which cannot be connected with the alleged occurrence. It is also argued that the pistol which has been shown to be the present case was actually handed over to the police by the co accused Ashutosh and not recovered from the conscious possession of the -2- medicines namely Zeptol etc. and when the complainant stated that the said medicines were not available, another boy demanded some other medicine. When the complainant started searching for the same, one of the boys pointed a country closed the shutter of the shop. It is alleged that the accused persons took away the money lying in the cash counter and threatened to kill the complainant before fleeing from the spot. On the basis of the said statement, the uring the course of investigation, the present petitioner Ashish Baghel was apprehended and it is alleged that a sum of made pistol and the helmet allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were recovered from his possession. The clothes allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were also recovered Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the same was registered against unknown persons. It is also contended that no specific amount of robbery has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. Learned counsel has further argued that no Test Identification Parade was ever conducted and there is no eyewitness to the allege incident. It is further submitted that the amount allegedly recovered from the , which cannot be connected with the alleged occurrence. It is also argued that the pistol which has been shown to be the present case was actually handed over to the police by the co accused Ashutosh and not recovered from the conscious possession of the medicines namely Zeptol etc. and when the complainant stated that the said medicines were not available, another boy demanded some other medicine. When the complainant started searching for the same, one of the boys pointed a country- closed the shutter of the shop. It is alleged that the accused persons took away the money lying in the cash counter and threatened to kill the complainant before fleeing from the spot. On the basis of the said statement, the uring the course of investigation, the present petitioner Ashish Baghel was apprehended and it is alleged that a sum of made pistol and the helmet allegedly worn by the petitioner session. The clothes allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were also recovered Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ase. It is submitted that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the same was registered nt of robbery has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. Learned counsel has further argued that no Test Identification Parade was ever conducted and there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the amount allegedly recovered from the , which cannot be connected with the alleged occurrence. It is also argued that the pistol which has been shown to be the present case was actually handed over to the police by the co- accused Ashutosh and not recovered from the conscious possession of the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69927- petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on parity with the co concession of bail. The role attributed to the said co petitioner is similar in nature. It is further submitted that the remaining co have also been granted bail and therefore th concession of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has certificate and status report, which are taken on record and has bail petition. He has the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner along with his co robbery at the medical store and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further submitted t of Rs.13,000/- and a country which was allegedly used during the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations against nature and if he is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard lear record of the case. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the case was initially registered against unknown persons. It is also a matter of record that no Test Identificat amount allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only Rs.3,000/ facie does not appear to be directly connected with the alleged occurrence. The -2025 (O&M) petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on parity with the co-accused Ajay, who has already been granted the concession of bail. The role attributed to the said co petitioner is similar in nature. It is further submitted that the remaining co have also been granted bail and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity. On the other hand, learned State counsel has certificate and status report, which are taken on record and has petition. He has submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner along with his co robbery at the medical store and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation a sum and a country-made pistol have been recovered in the present case, which was allegedly used during the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations against nature and if he is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In the present case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the case was initially registered against unknown persons. It is also a matter of record that no Test Identification Parade was conducted during the investigation. The amount allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only Rs.3,000/ facie does not appear to be directly connected with the alleged occurrence. The -3- petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the petitioner d Ajay, who has already been granted the concession of bail. The role attributed to the said co-accused Ajay and the present petitioner is similar in nature. It is further submitted that the remaining co-accused e petitioner is also entitled to the On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report, which are taken on record and has opposed the present submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused committed robbery at the medical store and threatened the complainant with dire hat during the course of investigation a sum made pistol have been recovered in the present case, which was allegedly used during the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and if he is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Therefore, the ned counsel for the parties and have gone through the In the present case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the case was initially registered against unknown persons. It is also a matter of record ion Parade was conducted during the investigation. The amount allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only Rs.3,000/-, which prima facie does not appear to be directly connected with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the petitioner d Ajay, who has already been granted the accused Ajay and the present accused e petitioner is also entitled to the filed the custody opposed the present submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against accused committed robbery at the medical store and threatened the complainant with dire hat during the course of investigation a sum made pistol have been recovered in the present case, which was allegedly used during the commission of the offence. Learned State the petitioner are grave in nature and if he is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Therefore, the ned counsel for the parties and have gone through the In the present case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the case was initially registered against unknown persons. It is also a matter of record ion Parade was conducted during the investigation. The , which prima facie does not appear to be directly connected with the alleged occurrence. The TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69927- pistol which has been shown to be recovere from the possession of the petitioner and rather the same was allegedly handed over to the police by the co case of the present petitioner stands on parity with t already been granted bail and the role attributed to both of them is similar in nature. The petitioner has been in custody for the last about 10 months and 24 days and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, especia prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The mere pendency of another criminal case against the petitioner cannot by itself be a ground to deny the concession of bail and the present petition cannot be rejected solely on the groun that the petitioner is involved in another case. 7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be reje other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second r other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." -2025 (O&M) pistol which has been shown to be recovered in the present case was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and rather the same was allegedly handed over to the police by the co-accused Ashutosh. It is further not disputed that the case of the present petitioner stands on parity with t already been granted bail and the role attributed to both of them is similar in nature. The petitioner has been in custody for the last about 10 months and 24 days and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, especia prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The mere pendency of another criminal case against the petitioner cannot by itself be a ground to deny the concession of bail and the present petition cannot be rejected solely on the groun that the petitioner is involved in another case. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second r other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." -4- d in the present case was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and rather the same was allegedly handed accused Ashutosh. It is further not disputed that the case of the present petitioner stands on parity with the co-accused Ajay, who has already been granted bail and the role attributed to both of them is similar in nature. The petitioner has been in custody for the last about 10 months and 24 days and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, especially when a number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The mere pendency of another criminal case against the petitioner cannot by itself be a ground to deny the concession of bail and the present petition cannot be rejected solely on the groun As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the judgment of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of cted solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the d in the present case was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and rather the same was allegedly handed accused Ashutosh. It is further not disputed that the accused Ajay, who has already been granted bail and the role attributed to both of them is similar in nature. The petitioner has been in custody for the last about 10 months and 24 days lly when a number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The mere pendency of another criminal case against the petitioner cannot by itself be a ground to deny the concession of bail and the present petition cannot be rejected solely on the ground As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the judgment of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of cted solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal espondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69927- 8. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegations and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed an Baghel is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned. However, nothing observ shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 06, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegations and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Consequently, the present petition is allowed an Baghel is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned. However, nothing observ shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegations and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Ashish Baghel is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegations and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, this d the petitioner Ashish Baghel is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the ed herein All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document