CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----18813 18813 18813 18813---- 208 (1 208 (1 208 (1 208 (1stststst case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Deepak State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short and Sections 120 Act, 1959 added later on) 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: ----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (Sections 392 of and Sections 120-B, 379-B and 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on), at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present the petitioner) is as follows: “To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhuna. Respected Sir, it is stated that myself Hardayal Singh son of Pritam Ram is permanent resident of Kalyan Nagar, Tohana and is working as salesman on Kishan Lal Bhajan Lal petrol pump Fatehabad Road, Bhuna. Today on dated 20.09.2022 at about 02:45 in the evening, I was going to SBI Bank Bhuna for depositing Rs.3,10,000cash of petrol pump on motorcycle and when I reached Dhani Sanchla Road turn Bhuna then from the one motorcycle splendor plus which is having no registration number 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----18813 18813 18813 18813----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August August August August 22 22 22 22, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.318 dated 20.09.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 34 of the (Sections 392 of the IPC deleted B and 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Bhuna, District Fatehabad. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhuna. Respected Sir, it is stated that myself Hardayal Singh son of Pritam Ram is permanent resident of Kalyan Nagar, Tohana and is working as salesman on Kishan Bhajan Lal petrol pump Fatehabad Road, Bhuna. Today on dated 20.09.2022 at about 02:45 in the evening, I was going to SBI Bank Bhuna for depositing Rs.3,10,000cash of petrol pump on motorcycle and when I reached Dhani Sanchla Road turn Bhuna then from the backside one motorcycle splendor plus which is having no registration number 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , of the IPC deleted B and 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhuna. Respected Sir, it is stated that myself Hardayal Singh son of Pritam Ram is permanent resident of Kalyan Nagar, Tohana and is working as salesman on Kishan Bhajan Lal petrol pump Fatehabad Road, Bhuna. Today on dated 20.09.2022 at about 02:45 in the evening, I was going to SBI Bank Bhuna for depositing Rs.3,10,000cash of petrol pump on motorcycle and backside one motorcycle splendor plus which is having no registration number MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----18813 18813 18813 18813---- 3. is in custody since petitioner has been falsely counsel has iterated that assuming to be correct, Learned counsel has available against the petitioner. Learned counsel the FIR/ complainant Thus, regular bail 4. arguing that the allegations raised and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record 22.08.2025, in 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 25 prosecution till date. It is not in dispute that the FIR/ complainant stands examined as a ----2025 2025 2025 2025 came and two boys were riding the same and they have tied clothes on their faces. The pillion rider boy was having pistol in his hand and he at once got down and came near me, an away my bag containing cash Rs.3 lakhs and 10,000 along with cash voucher. Both the boys ran away from the spot on their motorcycle. The above said unknown boys who were riding the motorcycle be located and strict legal action be taken against them and money be recovered. I shall be highly thankful to you. ” Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 28.09.2022. Learned counsel has been falsely implicated into the iterated that assuming arguendo, , prime attribution to the petitioner is of undertaking recce only. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no substantial evidence available against the petitioner. Learned counsel the FIR/ complainant has already stands examined as prosecution witness. regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record in the Court today, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but It is not in dispute that the FIR/ complainant stands examined as a 2222 came and two boys were riding the same and they have tied clothes on their faces. The pillion rider boy was having pistol in his hand and he at once got down and came near me, and he pointed the pistol and snatched away my bag containing cash Rs.3 lakhs and 10,000 along with cash voucher. Both the boys ran away from the spot on their motorcycle. The above said unknown boys who were riding the motorcycle be located action be taken against them and money be recovered. I for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner ounsel has further iterated that the implicated into the FIR in question. Learned , the prosecution version is taken prime attribution to the petitioner is of undertaking recce only. further argued that there is no substantial evidence available against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that has already stands examined as prosecution witness. counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated taken on record. rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2022 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 25.11.2022. Total but only 03 have been examined It is not in dispute that the FIR/ complainant stands examined as a 2222 came and two boys were riding the same and they have tied clothes on their faces. The pillion rider boy was having pistol in his hand and he at d he pointed the pistol and snatched away my bag containing cash Rs.3 lakhs and 10,000 along with cash voucher. Both the boys ran away from the spot on their motorcycle. The above said unknown boys who were riding the motorcycle be located action be taken against them and money be recovered. I the petitioner that the Learned taken prime attribution to the petitioner is of undertaking recce only. further argued that there is no substantial evidence has further submitted that has already stands examined as prosecution witness. by are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. stody certificate dated parties and have gone through whereinafter Total been examined It is not in dispute that the FIR/ complainant stands examined as a MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----18813 18813 18813 18813---- prosecution witness. debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the tri been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 6.2. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 10 months and 22 ----2025 2025 2025 2025 prosecution witness. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the tri been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 “18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a p sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the f of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven g brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” As per custody certificate dated State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period 02 years, 10 months and 22 days. Further, as per the said custody 3333 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus: Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental e stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a ave been infringed thereby violating Article As per custody certificate dated 22.08.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period . Further, as per the said custody 3333 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival al. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with ast and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental e stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court undamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that uilty cannot be We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a ave been infringed thereby violating Article filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period . Further, as per the said custody MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----18813 18813 18813 18813---- certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a out for grant of regular bail facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State Rashadi v. State Rashadi v. State Rashadi v. State Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/D Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou ----2025 2025 2025 2025 certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State Rashadi v. State Rashadi v. State Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/D Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with trial Court. 4444 certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State o Akhilesh Singh v. State o Akhilesh Singh v. State o Akhilesh Singh v. State of f f f Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryan Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. resent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the 4444 However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession case is made the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of & judgments of this f f f f a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) a, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an resent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in uty before the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----18813 18813 18813 18813---- 8. which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stand August August August August 22 22 22 22, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ----2025 2025 2025 2025 (vi) The petitioner shall give his ce Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay trial. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5555 The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous s disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 5555 the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station prior the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment