CRM-M-36220-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 CRM-M-36220-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.07.2026 Aabid ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Farukh Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition is the second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.147 dated 05.09.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 312 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 398 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860] and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Punhana, District Nuh. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Naveen Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 05.09.2025 at about 08:30 am, when he was present at his shop, two unknown persons wearing helmets and masks entered his shop on the pretext of purchasing a silver ring. According to complainant, due to their suspicious conduct he refused to show them VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36220-2026 (O&M) 2 rings, and thereafter, one of the above-mentioned two persons took out a pistol and attempted to fire a gunshot. The complainant further stated that thereafter he hit him with the butt of the weapon and inflicted other injuries on his person. As per complainant, thereafter a scuffle ensued between the two and with the help of a passerby, namely ‘Fakruddin’, the petitioner was overpowered and apprehended on the spot, whereas his co-accused ‘Aamir’ managed to run away from the spot. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is second petition for bail, as the first petition for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the first petition was not decided on merits, the second petition is maintainable. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36220-2026 (O&M) 3 period of more than ten months, and that the statement of complainant in this case has already been recorded. It has been further contended that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years. 8. In view of abovementioned grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that due to delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner is a person, who is already facing prosecution in more than five other criminal cases, including the case under Gangster Act, theft case, attempt to murder case and robbery case. As per learned State Counsel, the petitioner was caught red-handed on the spot and therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to identity of petitioner. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the offence is grievous in nature and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that the allegations against the petitioner are that he was apprehended on the spot, when he was trying to commit robbery on gunpoint. In the abovementioned given fact situation, at least this possibility prima facie seems to be ruled out that there is dispute with regard to identity of the petitioner. Secondly, the total custody of the petitioner is only ten months, which by any standard cannot be treated to a VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36220-2026 (O&M) 4 period of long incarceration, amounting to defeating the right of speedy trial of the petitioner. Otherwise also, out of fourteen prosecution witnesses, two have already been examined. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has long criminal history, as he has been facing prosecution in other criminal cases also. 12. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition being devoid of merits deserves dismissal. The present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document