CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19650 19650 19650 19650---- 110+219 110+219 110+219 110+219 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 Manjeet Singh State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner in case bearing offences punishable under Section 379 short ‘IPC’), at Police Station 2. 31.10.2023 at about 07:35 p.m., the (complainant) reached near the main gate, two boys came on a motorcycle chain made of gold weighing 30 grams and ran away 3. in custody since been falsely implicated into the FIR in question ----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 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Manjeet Singh 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. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, 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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.863 dated fences punishable under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for , at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. The gravamen of the allegations against the 31.10.2023 at about 07:35 p.m., the victim along with her husband (complainant) were walking in the Court Complex, reached near the main gate, two boys came on a motorcycle made of gold weighing 30 grams and ran away Learned counsel for the petitioner has in custody since 04.12.2023. Learned counsel has falsely implicated into the FIR in question 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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19650 19650 19650 19650----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: September 16 September 16 September 16 September 16, 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 Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 31.10.2023, registered for A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. the allegations against the petitioner is that on victim along with her husband in the Court Complex, Sirsa, and when they reached near the main gate, two boys came on a motorcycle and snatched the made of gold weighing 30 grams and ran away from the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to , registered for A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for on victim along with her husband and when they the that the petitioner is petitioner has . Learned counsel has further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19650 19650 19650 19650----2025 2025 2025 2025 iterated that the requisite Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not conducted, in accordance with law. Learned counsel has also iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, hence, he ought not to be extended concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 15.09.2025, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.12.2023 and is in continuous custody since then. Upon culmination of the investigation, the challan has been presented on 26.01.2024. Total 11 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 05 have been examined till date. It is not in dispute that prime prosecution witnesses, namely, injured and FIR/ complainant/ husband of the victim stand examined. 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. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 15.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 09 months and 12 days. Further, as per the said custody 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19650 19650 19650 19650----2025 2025 2025 2025 petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made 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 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 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 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. State State State State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) 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. 7. 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 /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (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 before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the CJM/ Duty Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/ Duty Magistrate as directed MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19650 19650 19650 19650----2025 2025 2025 2025 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9 Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 16 September 16 September 16 September 16, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment