IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.31929 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 Reserved on: 11.08.2025 Basant Singh @ Rinku ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 47 11.03.2025 Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib 310(2), 312, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (For short ‘BNS’) and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this MANJU 2025.08.21 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.31929 of 2025 -2- petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Ajay Kumar alleging therein that he along with Kunal Verma used to deal in the business of scrap trading and was running an office at Preet Nagar. On the evening of 10.03.2025, he was present in his office along with Himanshu and Nikhil Gupta when a Swift car bearing No.HR-26-CW-0399 stopped outside his office. Six persons were sitting in the same. Five of them alighted from the vehicle and while knocking at the glass door of his office which was bolted from inside, they made an exhortation to open the door. Out of fear, the complainant did not open the same. One of those five persons then opened fired with a pistol at the glass door resulting into damage of the glass of the door. His companions ran from there and had hidden themselves upstairs. Those five persons then entered inside the office and assaulted the complainant. They damaged his Apple iphone and forcibly took away cash amount of Rs.15,50,000/- from the drawer of the office table and then fled. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 16.03.2025, a secret information was received that the petitioner and Jaideep Singh were involved in the incident and they were roaming in the area with an intent to commit some other crime. They were apprehended while riding a motorbike which was not having any number plate. They even fired shots with firearm with their weapons but were apprehended from the spot as in self-defence, the members of police party had also fired shots with their service pistol and both of them had sustasined MANJU 2025.08.21 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.31929 of 2025 -3- firearm injuries. On asking, the petitioner and the co-accused disclosed their names and particulars. On making search from the CCTV footage of the area wherein the incident had taken place, the petitioner and the co-accused Jaideep Singh were found to be amongst the persons who had committed the subject crime. A separate FIR bearing No.51 was registered against them. The petitioner and the co-accused were interrogated and suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in this case. They also disclosed the names of other accused namely, Manpreet Singh @ Manni, Gurpreet Singh @ Dhoni, Uma Shankar, Ajay and Jaspal who too were arrested. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 19.03.2025. He was not named in the FIR. A false recovery is planted upon him. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistasnt Advocate General, Punjab that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused to commit an offence and in prosecution of common object of that assembly, he along with the co-accused had broken the door of office of the complainant, had assaulted the complainant, looted a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- from the same and had fled away from the same. He was MANJU 2025.08.21 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.31929 of 2025 -4- identified from the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the vicinity. He is a habitual offender being involved in cases under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as NDPS Act. Recovery of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs out of looted amount was effected from the petitioner and the co-accused Jaideep Singh. His release would pose a serious threat to public safety. The complainant and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses, absconding or committing similar offences if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused is alleged to have criminally trespassed in the business place of the complainant and assaulted him and his companions and robbed him/committed dacoity of an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- from his office. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The apprehension that he might intimidate the complainant and other eye-witnesses if releasead on bail, cannot be stated to be unfounded as they are yet to be examined. The petitioner has criminal antecedents since he is found invovled in four other cases one of which is under the provisions of NDPS Act. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case lest they prejudice the trial in any manner, this Court is of the opinion that the MANJU 2025.08.21 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.31929 of 2025 -5- petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (MANISHA BATRA) 21.08.2025 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2025.08.21 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh