CRM-M-23975-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Sr. No.228 Case No. : CRM-M-23975-2025 Decided On : August 25, 2025 Mithun Buttar @ Nikka .... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR. * * * Present : Mr. Siddharth Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. * * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. : Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.9 dated 21.01.2022, under Sections 457, 380, 427, 395, 398, 201, 411 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bariwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on the statement of complainant namely Sanjay Kumar, Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Lubanianwali, the police swung into action, wherein it was stated that on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2022, robbery took place in the aforesaid bank. When he came for his duty in routine manner at about 09:30 AM on 21.01.2022, he found the front gate broken and shutter of the bank cut with cutter. Everything inside the bank was scattered and wires of the batteries were cut. Five monitors, three batteries, one CPU, one electric MONIKA 2025.08.26 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23975-2025 2 stove and a room heater were missing. The robbers even made an attempt to break the safehouses of the bank. On inquiry from the guard, he came to know that the guard came for his duty at about 03:00 AM, when an un- numbered Verna Car was standing outside the bank with its light on and 4-5 persons were standing by the Car. It was reported by the complainant/ Manager that those unknown persons had committed robbery in the bank and therefore, action be taken against them. On the basis of this statement, the FIR in question was registered. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Apart from the petitioner, other co-accused namely Harjinder Singh @ Bhatti, Resham Singh @ Motta, Vipal Singh @ Vipan Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Sewa Singh, have already been granted bail by this Court. So, the case of the petitioner is to be considered at parity with the aforesaid co-accused. Learned counsel further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time and therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail. While issuing notice of motion on 09.05.2025, respondent-State was directed to file Status Report and Custody Certificate. The Status Report has already been filed and placed on record. Custody Certificate dated 24.08.2025, filed today in Court, is taken on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition while contending that some other cases are also pending against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and if he is admitted to bail, there are chances that he may flee from the jurisdiction of Courts, thereby defeating the ends of justice. So, he does not MONIKA 2025.08.26 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23975-2025 3 deserve the concession of bail and the present petition be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file. As per the allegations, the petitioner, along with his co-accused, had committed the alleged robbery in the bank. Other co-accused, detailed as above, have already been granted concession of regular bail, who have been assigned the same role as that of petitioner. As per the Custody Certificate dated 24.08.2025, filed today in Court, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 03 years and 07 months. Trial of the case is going on, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition. August 25, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No. Whether reportable ? Yes/No. MONIKA 2025.08.26 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document