CRM-M-23614-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 CRM-M-23614-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Nitish @ Khali ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Pardeep Panwar, Advcate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 249 dated 08.09.2024 registered under Sections 126(2), 3(5), 61(2), 238 and 309(4)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sector 32, Faridabad. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant Malkiat Singh, who was running a fast food shop, on the allegations that on the night of 01.09.2024 at about 11:00 PM, he was going on his bike towards his house along with his employee Deepak, when three youths riding on a bike stopped his vehicle. Two of them alighted from their vehicle while being armed with knife and pistol. By showing weapons, they took away his wallet containing cash amount of Rs. 11,800/- and also MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23614-2026 (O&M) -2- snatched mobile phones of Deepak as well as of himself. Thereafter, they fled away. Out of fear, he did not report the matter to the police earlier. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the petitioner, who was arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 250 dated 08.09.2024 suffered a disclosure statement admitting his complicity in the crime and also about the involvement of co-accused Aman Kumar as well as accused Shashi and Hemant in this case. The petitioner was formally arrested in this case on 08.09.2024 and got recovered a sum of Rs. 2,000/- out of the snatched money. Co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of seven days in lodging of the FIR which has not been specifically explained by the complainant. He has been involved in this case on the basis of his own disclosure statement, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. As per the allegations in the FIR, three persons were involved in the offence but four persons have been nominated as accused thereby showing that he has been falsely implicated. Trial would take considerable time. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused Aman Kumar, Shashi and Hemant Gupta have already been granted concession of bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report and the custody certificate of the petitioner have been filed by respondent-State. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23614-2026 (O&M) -3- allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2024. Presently, no other case is pending against him. Trial will take time to conclude. All the other co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner, the nature of subject offences and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 07.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document