242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SOMBIR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.49 dated 16.02.2024 under Sections 392/395/397/427/506 registered at Police 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2024, complainant Ravinder Kumar son of Randhir Singh came in the Police Station, Israna and moved a complaint stating therein ALTO Car bearing for taking petrol in Ankush son of Surender, resident of village Mandi to fill the tank of car. The salesman filled the petrol ALTO Car to driver and asked for money. They shown the pistol and put the salesman Ankush towards car and after that they took Ankush towards Israna IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR s. Shivani Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.49 dated 16.02.2024 under Sections 392/395/397/427/506 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat (Annexure P Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2024, complainant Ravinder Kumar son of Randhir Singh came in the Police Station, Israna and moved a complaint stating therein on 15.02.2024 at about 03.30 P.M., ALTO Car bearing registration No.HR-11D-2504 came from Samalkha side for taking petrol in which three boys were sitting. They stated to salesman Surender, resident of village Mandi to fill the tank of car. The the petrol of Rs.2,399/- and after that salesman gave the key of driver and asked for money. They shown the pistol and put the Ankush towards car and after that they took Ankush towards Israna IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14529-2025 Date of decision: 21.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.49 dated 16.02.2024 under Sections of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 Israna, District Panipat (Annexure P-1). Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2024, complainant Ravinder Kumar son of Randhir Singh came in the Police Station, Israna and 15.02.2024 at about 03.30 P.M., one 2504 came from Samalkha side which three boys were sitting. They stated to salesman Surender, resident of village Mandi to fill the tank of car. The and after that salesman gave the key of driver and asked for money. They shown the pistol and put the Ankush towards car and after that they took Ankush towards Israna MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14529 side. Another salesman namely Shivam son of Vikram fo and succeed to put out the key of vehicle. In a pre bearing No.HR standing and on two boys came out looted an amount of Shivam take opportunity towards Gawalra side his life. Thereafter, and on their back the five persons Mahendra Pick- boys threatened to kill them and ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle Alentara. ALTO vehicle was standing on the petrol pump. Sale about the same to the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was not present along with other assailants at the time of incident as he was in another vehicle, waiting out similarly situated regular bail by this Court. bars since 19.04.2024. 4. Learned State counsel petitioner, which is take on record and petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in the alleged incident and one country 14529-2025 2 Another salesman namely Shivam son of Vikram fo succeed to put out the key of vehicle. In a pre No.HR-26CG-9804 black colour Elentra Hyundai was already standing and on mirror of car written Haryana in English letter two boys came out along with weapon. All of them, on the point of weapon looted an amount of Rs.11,000/- from salesman Ankush. In the meantime, Shivam take opportunity and ran away from the spot after taking key of ALTO towards Gawalra side and Ankush also ran away from th his life. Thereafter, said three boys came on foot at petrol pump for taking key and on their back two boys came on vehicle bearing No.HR the five persons openly showed the pistol on air and they broken the mirror of -Up and Activa which were standing on petrol pump. threatened to kill them and ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle ALTO vehicle was standing on the petrol pump. Sale to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was not present along with other assailants at the time of incident as he was in another vehicle, waiting outside the patrol pump. similarly situated, six co-accused have already regular bail by this Court. She further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 19.04.2024. earned State counsel produces th petitioner, which is take on record and per contra, on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in the alleged incident and one country-made pistol was recovered pursuant to his Another salesman namely Shivam son of Vikram followed the vehicle succeed to put out the key of vehicle. In a pre-planned manner, vehicle 9804 black colour Elentra Hyundai was already mirror of car written Haryana in English letters. Out of them, with weapon. All of them, on the point of weapon from salesman Ankush. In the meantime, and ran away from the spot after taking key of ALTO and Ankush also ran away from the spot in order to save said three boys came on foot at petrol pump for taking key two boys came on vehicle bearing No.HR-26CG-9804. All the pistol on air and they broken the mirror of Up and Activa which were standing on petrol pump. All five threatened to kill them and ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle ALTO vehicle was standing on the petrol pump. Salesman told Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was not present along with other assailants at the time of incident as side the patrol pump. She submits that already been granted concession of She further submits that the petitioner is behind the produces the custody certificate of the per contra, opposes the prayer of the on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in the made pistol was recovered pursuant to his MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14529 disclosure statement. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender as he involved in five more cases. 5. A two Kumar Antil v. CBI’ of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since 19.04.2024. Investigation is complete. The final report Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 31 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far. be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention 14529-2025 3 disclosure statement. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender as he involved in five more cases. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offe for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as b opposite to each other.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since .04.2024. Investigation is complete. The final report Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and case has not made much progress as out of 31 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far. mined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention disclosure statement. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender as he Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender , with respect to prevailing conditions 6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The fore us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a onial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since .04.2024. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and case has not made much progress as out of 31 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would mined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14529 without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights 7. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and another”, 2012 (2) SCC 382 cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. T without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. March 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 14529-2025 4 without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. T without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Sombir is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” 2020 (1) “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. , the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document