CRM-M-38365-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 250 CRM-M-38365-2026 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Sudama ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. GREWAL ***** Present: Mr. S. S. Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** H. S. GREWAL , J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 46 dated 17.01.2026, registered under Sections 310(2), 331(4), 61(2) and 317(3) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 395, 457, 120-B and 412 IPC) at Police Station Sector-10, Gurugram. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who was working as a Supervisor in JMS Company, Sector-95, Gurugram, reported that the company had stored wires of electrical fittings and other articles in a temporary container. On the intervening night of 15/16.01.2026, some unknown persons broke open the lock of the said container and stole bundles of electrical wires and other articles, causing a loss of approximately Rs.10 lakhs. The allegation against the petitioner is that the stolen copper wire was loaded in the vehicle owned by him, which was allegedly used in the ANIL KUMARcommission of the offence. It is also alleged that the petitioner was part of the 2026.07.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38365-2026 2 conspiracy and facilitated the transportation of the stolen property in his vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as initially the case was registered against unknown persons. It is submitted that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and neither the CCTV footage, fingerprints nor any other scientific evidence establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 01 days and is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that co-accused Mahtab Ali and Udayveer @ Uday Singh @ Amit @ Likka have already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-34579-2026 and CRM-M-35000-2026 on 07.07.2026 (Annexures P-2 & P-3 respectively). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time because none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 01 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38365-2026 3 7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 01 days, he is not involved in any other case, co-accused(s) have already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. July 21, 2026 (H. S. GREWAL ) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document