CRM-M-38824-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 263 CRM-M-38824-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 22.07.2026 Mubarik ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Ajay Kripal Singh, Advocate for Ms. Shivani Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral) This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.183 dated 22.06.2020, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 34 and 379A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Corresponding Sections 3(5) and 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023], Police Station Section 29, District Panpat. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Sohil Khan’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that when he was present near Flora Chowk, accused came on a scooty bearing Registration No.UP-19E-3726 and enquired about the VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.23 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38824-2026 (O&M) 2 way. As per complainant, in the meantime, accused Farukh snatched his mobilephone and all the accused attempted to flee from the spot, but he caught hold of the scooty from the rear side, due to which the accused along with the scooty fell on the road. According to complainant, he apprehended the accused Mubarik (the petitioner herein) at the spot, whereas the accused Farukh and Shakil were chased and apprehended by the complainant’s family members. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR in this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vikram Singh, 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 contented on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner, who has clean antecedent, was accorded the benefit of bail in this case, but due to lack of communication between the petitioner and his counsel, he could not appear before the Court and therefore, his bail was cancelled. According to learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, the petitioner was VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.23 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38824-2026 (O&M) 3 declared a proclaimed offender. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that thereafter, the petitioner surrended himself before the Court on 23.02.2026 and since then he is in custody. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of five months and twenty four days and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. 8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner has already misused the benefit of bail in this case and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that earlier also, the petitioner was accorded the benefit of bail; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedent; iii) that after surrender, the petitioner has already served imprisonment for a period of five months and twenty four days; iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of seven prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far; v) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.23 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38824-2026 (O&M) 4 vi) that the detention of petitioner in the judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 11. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in- volved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present peti- tion deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.23 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38824-2026 (O&M) 5 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.23 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document