CRM-M-42265-2025 -1- 234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42265-2025 Date of Decision: 08.08.2025 Rohan Kumar @ Bhola @ Rohna ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.42 dated 06.04.2024, under Sections 379-B(2), 148/149 IPC (Section 411/201 IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Rahul. It was alleged that on 04.04.2024 at around 11.00 P.M., he was walking at the ground block near Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and in the meantime, 6 unknown young men came on 02 motorcycles. They started beating him with datar, due to which he fell down. They forcibly snatched his mobile Phone Brand Redmi. It was alleged that he could identify them, if brought before him. The request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner was surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.08 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-42265-2025 -2- Sessions Judge, Amritsar praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-40612-2024, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.11.2024. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Bhag Singh @ Bhagu. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 24.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-343-2025, whereby, co-accused Bhag Singh @ Bhagu has been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2024. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail. 4. Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Bhag Singh @ Bhagu. On instructions, he submits that out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.08 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-42265-2025 -3- record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 19.04.2024. Co-accused, namely, Bhag Singh @ Bhagu is on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with him. As submitted before this Court, out of 19 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. Custody certificate of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 03 months & 16 days as on 07.08.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 6. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 7. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 08.08.2025 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.08 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC