CRM-M-53019 IN THE H (235) GOURAV GIR STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. M Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 379 2. The statement got reco that on 13.04.202 were returning bac the way, they wer Swift Car and aft mother and after s 3019-2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS S.S. Kamboj, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Kamboj, Advocate for the p Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.60 ns 379B, 332 and 34 IPC at Police Sta The aforementioned FIR was reg ot recorded by complainant-Varinder 4.2024, his wife Dharamveer Kaur a ng back to their house from Gurdwara ey were intercepted by three youths a nd after alighting from the same, ca after snatching her gold ear-rings and JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-53019-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 60 dated 01.05.2024 registered ice Station Samana, District Patiala. s registered on the basis of the rinder Singh on 01.05.2024 alleging Kaur and mother Sukhwinder Kaur dwara Sahib of Village and while on ouths and one female, who came in caught hold of the arms of his s and of his wife, they had managed M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered the ging Kaur le on e in f his aged AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-53019 to escape. He also and had come to k Tinku Sharma an registration of FI alongwith the co statement admittin gold ear-rings. O subject offences Investigation now 3. It is a falsely implicated to the Police whic planted upon him. been extended be same benefit. Hi reason for denying be released on bail 4. Status the petitioner is a h offences or abscon the petition does n 5. This counsel for the par 3019-2025 (O&M) 2 e also disclosed that he had been ma e to know that the petitioner alongwit ma and Jaspreet Kaur was involve of FIR, investigation proceedings w he co-accused was arrested on 21.05. dmitting his involvement in the crim gs. One Swift car used by them at t nces has already been taken into n now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. There is delay of 1 e which has not been properly explain n him. The co-accused Tinku Sharma ed benefit of bail. On parity, he too it. His involvement in other cases c enying benefit of bail to him. It is, th on bail. Status report has been filed. Learned r is a habitual offender. There are cha absconding, if extended benefit of bai does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival subm the parties at considerable length. en making inquiries at his own level gwith the co-accused Ajay Kumar, nvolved in the occurrence. After ings were initiated. The petitioner 21.05.2024. He suffered disclosure e crime and got recovered snatched m at the time of commission of the into custody in some other case. for the petitioner that he has been ay of 17 days in reporting the matter xplained. A false recovery has been ma and Ajay Kumar have already he too deserves to be extended the cases cannot be considered to be a It is, thus argued that he deserves to earned State counsel has argued that re chances of his committing similar of bail. It is, therefore, argued that l submissions made by the learned level , After ioner sure ched f the case. been atter been eady d the be a es to that milar that rned AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-53019 6. The prosecution witnes of conclusion of tr some other cases b well settled propo post-conviction se into consideration trial will take tim without meaning t the considered opi As such the petiti bail, subject to his learned trial Court 7. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 8. Since any, is rendered in 09.02.2026 Amit Sharma


3019-2025 (O&M) 3 The petitioner is in custody since 21 witnesses have been examined so far n of trial in the near future. The petiti cases but he cannot be denied benefit o proposition of law that pre-trial incarc tion sentencing and bail is the rule an ration the period spent by the petition ke time to conclude and the attendan ning to make any comment on the me ed opinion that the petitioner has mad petition is allowed and the petitione to his furnishing personal and surety b Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

nce 21.05.2024. Only 02 out of 12 so far. As such there are no chances petitioner is stated to be involved in enefit of bail due to that reason. It is l incarceration shall not be replica of ule and jail is an exception. Taking etitioner in custody, the fact that the tendant facts and circumstances but the merit of the case, this Court is of as made out a case for grant of bail. titioner is ordered to be released on urety bonds to the satisfaction of the /Duty Magistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
f 12 nces ed in It is ca of king t the s but is of bail. d on f the t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.