1 CRM-M-7051-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7051-2025 Reserved on:16.07.2025 Pronounced on: 28.07.2025 Raj Kumar alias Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 69 15.05.2024 Passiana, District Patiala 379 IPC (Section 411 & 473 IPC added later on) 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. Per paragraph 15 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 15.07.2025, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1 458 18.11.2023 454, 380, 411 IPC Sohana 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “That the present case/FIR No. 0069 (supra) was registered pursuant to the statement dated 15.05.2024 of Manohar Lal (complainant), wherein he stated that he was working as a security guard in B4S Solutions Private Limited Company. The company is involved in maintenance work of towers of Indus Company through patrolling. One tower of Indus Company was located at village Mallomajra and one at village Shermajra. On 03.05.2024, the range of the said towers was gone and the ANJU RANI 2025.07.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-7051-2025 2 company technician Randhir Singh was the in-charge of 24 towers, who told that upon checking both the towers at 4 PM, he found that BTS cards of both the towers were missing. The BTS cards of the towers were stolen by some unknown person(s). Hence, the present case/FIR was registered against unknown person(s) for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “11. Role of petitioner:- That petitioner alongwith his co-accused amit alias Meetu committed theft of valuable parts from mobile towers and 23 BTS cards stolen by them from different mobile towers were also recovered by the investigating agency on the basis of their disclosure statements. Moreover, the motorcycle recovered from them was also a stolen vehicle and they were using the same by affixing forged number plate.” REASONING: 7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. 8. Per paragraph 18 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 15.07.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 01 year, 01 month & 24 days. 9. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. ANJU RANI 2025.07.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-7051-2025 3 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 16. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. ANJU RANI 2025.07.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh