252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26907-2025 Date of Decision:20.08.2025 Sandeep …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate with Mr. Gurdeep Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No. 54, dated 12.02.2025, registered under Sections 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act, Sections 111(2) (A) of B.N.S and 29(a) of Arms Act added later on, Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not initially named in the FIR and had no connection with the occurrence in question. The petitioner was named by Kartik Kumar, main accused in his disclosure statement and except that there is no other evidence against him. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 04.03.2025 and challan has already been presented against him. Learned counsel next contends that Kartik, main accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the HITESH 2025.08.21 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-26907-2025 -2 Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pataudi on 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-4). He next contends that eight more other cases were ordered to be registered against the petitioner, but he is stated to be on bail in all these cases. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the present petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. No doubt, eight more FIRs were ordered to be registered against the petitioner, but the same cannot be denied the concession of bail in the present case only on the ground that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance can also be placed in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., and another 2020(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be the basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Similar observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P., and another 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586. The petitioner is in custody for the last about five months and Kartik, main accused has already been admitted to bail. Thus, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ HITESH 2025.08.21 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-26907-2025 -3 Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned. (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. (v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court. (vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously. (vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. 7. In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 20.08.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.08.21 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh