REEMA SAINI 2026.07.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-26351 of 2026(O&M) 2 out pistol and threatened to shoot them, if they did not step back. Both of them stepped back out of fear. One of the accused opened the car door and told Sukhmanjeet Singh to get out of the car. Sukhmanjeet Singh stepped out of car, out of fear. Thereafter, those youngmen boarded the car and drove away along with registration certificate, license, aadhar card, PAN card, Rs.17,000/-, Mobile phone of Manpreet Singh lying on the dashboard, leaving their motor cycle behind. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated on the basis of secret information, though he was not named in the FIR. Petitioner was in custody for the last 1 year and 4 months. Trial was likely to take long to conclude, therefore, petitioner was entitled to concession of bail. 4. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate and has opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that recovery of car was effected from the petitioner, who was a habitual offender with as many as 6 cases of serious nature registered against him. He further submits that petitioner, at the time of arrest, fired shots at the police party regarding which FIR was registered against him. He was a dangerous criminal and considering his antecedents he was not entitled to concession of bail, even though investigation of the case was completed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 FIRs against the petitioner were registered on the same day i.e. 30.04.2023 and all cases were falsely planted by the police. 6. Petitioner along with his co-accused is alleged to have robbed the complainant of his car at pistol point. During the course of investigation the car is stated to have been recovered from him. Petitioner has criminal REEMA SAINI 2026.07.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-26351 of 2026(O&M) 3 antecedents. He is involved in 6 other cases of serious nature. Main witnesses are yet to be examined and the Court has good reason to believe that in case of release on bail, petitioner would attempt to tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses. Considering the nature and substance of allegations against the petitioner, the role attributed to him, prima-facie material in support of the charge, the fact that prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, the nature and gravity of offence and quantum of punishment, conviction may entail, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail despite the period of incarceration. 7. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh