CRM-M-24613-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24613-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 10.09.2025 Pronounced on : 15.09.2025 Pankaj ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Prayer in this petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 39 dated 22.10.2021, registered under Section 379-B of IPC (Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC added later on) at Police Station GRP, Pathankot, District Pathankot. 2. As per the allegations, on 04.10.2021, complainant Sonali Vineet Rane was travelling in a Coach No. S/2 of Jammutavi Express with her family members and was going to Jammutavi to Bandra Terminus. At about 07:30 PM, a youth came to the Coach and after snatching her handbag managed to escape. This bag was having cash amount of Rs.13,000/-, her Oppo Reno make mobile phone, ATM Card and other documents. On her complaint, a zero FIR was registered and the same was transferred to GRP, Pathankot. During the course of investigation, technical assistance was taken and it was revealed that from the snatched mobile, belonging to the complainant, two MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.17 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24613-2025 (O&M) -2- different SIM Cards were used, one of which was in the name of Raghav Mahajan. Raghav Mahajan was joined into investigation and revealed that the petitioner, who had at that time told his name as ‘Hemant’, had stayed at his hotel from 25.10.2021 till 30.10.2021. While checking out on 31.10.2021, he told that his purse had been lost and in lieu of the hotel charges, had given his Oppo mobile phone to Raghav Mahajan by saying that he would come and would take his phone back after making payment of the charges. On the basis of further investigation, the petitioner was arrested along with one Randhir Singh in another case bearing FIR No. 39 dated 22.06.2022 at Police Station GRP, Pathankot and the mobile phone snatched from the complainant was recovered from him along with five more mobile phones. He was joined into investigation of this case and admitted his involvement. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. No test identification parade was conducted. The complainant has not identified him by physically remaining present. The trial will take time. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. While refuting the contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. The complainant has been examined and has duly identified the petitioner. The recovery of stolen/snatched phone has been effected from him. Only one prosecution witness remains to be examined. The MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.17 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24613-2025 (O&M) -3- trial is at its fag end. The petitioner is a habitual offender. There are chances of his absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. 6. The instant one is the fifth petition for grant of bail filed by the petitioner. Apart from this case, he is involved in six more cases and as per the status report, he has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC in two of such cases. The trial is going to conclude. The complainant has supported the prosecution version. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of regular bail. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 15.09.2024 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.17 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document