CRM-M- IN 234 Deepanshu v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 25.02.2025 61(2), 238 Rampura, BNSS for g 2. noticed her her husban 23.2.2025 a physical id to trace th -56956-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA anshu of Haryana AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate f Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Harya **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accus .2025, registered against him under ), 238 of BNS and Section 25/54/59 pura, District Rewari, has filed the pre S for grant of bail. Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- One Pooja, wife of Gaurav file sband, mentioning therein that he ha 025 and had not returned back till 2 al identification details of her husba e the whereabouts of her husband 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-56956-2025 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. cate for the petitioner. , Haryana. accused in case FIR No. 29 date under Sections 140(2), 308(5), 3(5 /54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Statio he present petition under Section 483 o ging from the documents on record b v filed a missing report with regard e had left the home at about 5 PM o ill 25.2.2025. She also mentioned th usband. She requested the authoriti and and also to initiate appropria .2026 dated ), 3(5), Station n 483 of cord be ard to M on ed the orities priate GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- proceeding complaint, u/s 127(6) Gaurav ret Magistrate. 142, 308(5) levelled sp Shekhar an Shekhar we etc. was ef the above m money from had also victim. On from Man the name o cropped up the purcha including B also got con instance, a -56956-2025 -2 dings against those who were res int, a formal case vide FIR No. 29 (6) of BNS. It further emerges from docum av returned and thereafter his statem istrate. Based on that, Section 127(6) 308(5), 3(5) of BNS and Section 25/54 Learned State counsel intima specific allegations against four and Anshul. Three out of the a har were arrested on 02.03.2025. Rec as effected from them. According t bove mentioned four had abducted th y from ATM. It is further the case of p also mortgaged the gold chain and m. On the strength of the same, they Mannipuran Gold Loan Branch. It is in the disclosure statemen ame of the present petitioner, namely ped up, who had arranged for money ( urchase of arms from Madhya Pra ding Bank Manager etc. were recorde got conducted. On culmination of inve Co-accused Anshul was arr , a country made pistol was recover 2- responsible. On the basis of sa 29 dated 25.02.2025, was registere documents on record that on 28.2.202 statement was recorded by the learne 27(6) of BNS was deleted and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act were added. intimates that in his statement, Gaura t four persons, namely, Ankit, Harji the above, namely, Ankit, Harjit an 5. Recovery of some arms/ammunitio ding to the case set up by prosecutio ted the victim, made him withdraw th ase of prosecution that the accused par and other precious ornaments of th , they had obtained loan of Rs.70,000 tement of the above named accused th amely, Deepanshu, son of Ved Parkas oney (Rs.1,20,000/-) and had facilitate a Pradesh. Statements of witnesse ecorded, Test Identification Parade wa of investigation, challan was presented as arrested on 25.6.2025 and at h ecovered. f said stered .2.2025, learned Sections Gaurav Harjit, rjit and unition ecution, raw the ed party s of the 70,000/- sed that Parkash cilitated itnesses, ade was sented. at his GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Additional dismissed t been filed f 3. was not nam a much lat accused, na the absence with the c contends th them, he i judgment o State of U ground to d in the prese likelihood Thus, when incarceratio be violativ including “Bail is allowing th 4. State couns -56956-2025 -3 Petitioner moved an applicatio tional Sessions Judge, Rewari, wh issed the said application. Aggrieve filed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petiti not named in the FIR, has been falsely ch later stage only on the basis of d sed, namely, Ankit, Harjit and Shekha bsence of recovery of any incriminati the commission of offence are s that though petitioner is involved , he is on bail, as also that his (P) ment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RC nd to deny the concession of bail. Continuing further, learned co e present case are complete, for challa ihood of the trial being completed in when appreciated in the light of ro ceration would not serve any useful pu iolative of his rights under Article right to speedy trial but would a general rule and incarceratio the petition has been made. Per contra, while opposing the counsel submits that though petition 3- lication for grant of bail before learne , who vide order dated 19.8.202 ieved of which, present petition ha petitioner submits that petitioner wh falsely implicated in the present case is of disclosure statements of three co hekhar. These disclosure statements minating material connecting petition not admissible. Learned couns olved in two other cases, but in both o is (P) past antecedents in the light o t in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi ) RCR (Criminal) 586, cannot be ned counsel contends that investigation challan has already been filed, but th ted in the near future is quite remot of role played by him, his (P) furth eful purpose as the same would not on rticle 21 of the Constitution of Indi would also be against the principle ration is an exception.” Prayer the request for grant of bail, learne etitioner was not named by the victim learned .8.2025, tion has who t case at hree co- s in etitioner counsel both of light of adi v. ot be a igations , but the remote. further only India, ciple of for learned victim, GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- but he play Rs.1,20,000 arms/ammu learned Sta already bee shared equ petitioner, overawing examined Court, cann 5. documents 6. have alread advanced further on view the investigatio prosecution completion favour of p of his right speedy trial and incarc Dataram (Criminal) -56956-2025 -4 played a very vital role in the entire ,20,000/- and facilitated the other /ammunition from Madhya Pradesh. State counsel that petitioner was been agreed between all of them equally between them. In view of ioner, if extended the concession awing complainant and other related ined till date and fleeing from the proc cannot be ruled out. Dismissal of pet Heard learned counsel for ments on record. Factual aspects of the case lea already been noticed in para 2 of the by learned counsel for the pet on the merits of the case, lest it m the fact that petitioner has bee tigations stand completed, as also cution witness has been examined letion of trial in the near future is quit of petitioner, for his further incarcer s rights under Article 21 of the Consti dy trial but would also be against the p carceration is an exception” as held vs. State of Uttar Pradesh inal) 131. 4- entire incident, as he arranged a sum other accused in purchasing illeg desh. It is further the submission was an indirect beneficiary as it ha them that the looted booty would of questionable past antecedents of bail, the likelihood of hi related witnesses, who have not bee process of justice by not appearing petition was prayed for. for the parties and perused leading to the registration of the FI the order. In view of the submission petitioner, but without commentin may prejudice the trial, keeping been in custody since 5.3.202 also taking note of the fact that mined till date, thus, possibility o is quite remote, lenient view is taken carceration would not only be violativ Constitution of India, including right t the principle of “Bail is a general ru as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court esh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R sum of illegal ssion of had be dents of him been aring in the FIR issions menting eping in .2025, that no ility of taken in iolative right to al rule ourt in R.C.R. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. to his furn learned tria the followin -56956-2025 -5 Resultantly, petitioner is grant s furnishing bail bonds and two loc ed trial Court/Duty Magistrate concer ollowing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not the trial. (ii) The petitioner will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not (vii) The petitioner shall f number to the Trial Court fo same till the conclusion of the the petitioner seeks to chang shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The petitioner will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioner. 5- s granted the concession of bail subje o local sureties to the satisfaction o oncerned. The petitioner shall abide b not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th l not leave the country without prio urt. l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th subject ction of bide by during e the prior to the which oerce, ith the g such ith the berty. obile ge the eason, same Trial n each der of other g the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. that in case at liberty t order. 9. herein are l construed a independen 17.02.2026 gbs -56956-2025 -6 Accordingly, the present petiti case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6- t petition is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b ail as granted to the petitioner by th t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No de clear shall be by this ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document