CRM-M-23789-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CRM-M-23789-2025 Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 KAWAL SINGH ALIAS LALA ....PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Kartik Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S.GREWAL , J (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 225 dated 13.11.2024 under Sections 109(1)/132/281/3(5)/61(2)/249B of BNS and under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner has been held responsible for the theft of a Fortuner car and the said vehicle was recovered from him when he was trying to flee away. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has no role in the theft as the said vehicle was not recovered from his possession. Moreover, regarding the Arms Act, there is no recovery of any weapon from the present petitioner as the same was recovered from the co-accused in the another vehicle i.e. Scorpio. The petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2024. 3. Notice of motion. Renu Rawat 2025.05.09 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23789-2025 2 4. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate dated 07.05.2025 the petitioner is in custody for 04 months and 09 days. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 09 days and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that if on bail, so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 08.05.2025. JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.05.09 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document