CRM-M-25847-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 244 CRM-M-25847-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:14.07.2026 Ankit ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.265, dated 17.08.2025, registered under Sections 310(2), 311, 127(2), 324(4), 317(3), 238(2), 61(2), 115(2) and 333 of the BNS and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sector-5, Gurugram. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant – Jaideep, Area Head of Manappuram Gold Loan Finance Limited Company, alleging therein that on 16.08.2025, on receipt of an information regarding some officials of the company being looted at Sheetla Mata Road Gurugram, Branch of the company by some HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25847-2026 (O&M) -2- unknown persons, he had rushed to the spot. The officials of the company, namely, Shri Krishna, Girendra and Guard Praduman were found present therein, who informed that on the same evening, one person, while introducing himself as Auditor of the company came there and asked Shri Krishna to count the cash. Two more persons reached there in the meanwhile and sat in the cabin. They left the Branch after 10 minutes but again came after sometime. They were accompanied by 02 more persons and they gave directions to the officials of the company to count the cash and to close the Branch. Then they entered inside the safe room and by injuring the guard and staff members with the butt of the gun, looted cash amount of Rs.8,56,000/- and some packets of gold jewellery. After damaging the CCTV cameras, locking the officials and injuring the guard, they had fled from the spot. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 19.08.2025, on the basis of a secret information, accused, namely, Mohan @ Mohna, Sunny @ Sunil, Rahul @ Bahra and Manish @ Bachchi were apprehended. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. Accused Rahul @ Bahra got recovered one mobile phone, accused Mohan @ Mohna got recovered a bag containing jewellery weighing 204 gram 90 mg, accused Sunny @ Sunil got recovered a bag containing jewellery weighing 362 grams 62 mg and accused Manish @ Bachchi got recovered a bag containing jewellery weighing 395 grams 85 mg. They also got recovered clothing worn by them at the time of occurrence. Subsequently, on 26.08.2025, one other accused Munish @ HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25847-2026 (O&M) -3- Annu was also arrested. On interrogation, she too suffered disclosure statement admitting her involvement in the crime and got recovered jewellery weighing 957 gram 69 mg from the house of her sister-in-law. Subsequently, accused Mohit @ Gullu, Gurmeet Kumar, Bharat Singh and Dinesh @ Fauji were also arrested. Two pistols used in the occurrence along with one live cartridge and one country made pistol were also recovered. Accused Dinesh @ Fauji suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and further disclosed that out of the looted jewellery which had come to his share, one necklace, one bracelet and one gold chain had been given by him to his friend Ankit i.e. the present petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioner was nominated as accused and apprehended on 11.12.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement disclosing that out of greed, he had purchased jewellery looted by his friend Dinesh for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and had sold the some of the same to some unknown person for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Some other persons were subsequently nominated as additional accused and had been arrested. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. His role is limited to being alleged receiver of the stolen/looted jewellery which is distinct from the main offence of robbery. He is in custody since long. Recovery of Rs.15,000/- has already been effected from him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25847-2026 (O&M) -4- anymore. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. His antecedents are not clean. There are chances of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have purchased the gold jewellery which was looted from the complainant/Bank by co-accused Dinesh and others for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and while fully knowing that the same was a stolen property, is alleged to have retained it and then sold it further to some unknown person. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC (which is pari materia to Section 317(2) of the BNS) as against the petitioner. However, the petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2025. He is not required for further investigation, which already stands concluded. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as only 04 out of 47 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post- conviction sentencing and that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the facts as discussed HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25847-2026 (O&M) -5- above, the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 14.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document