[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shoyab @ Soyab vs State Of Haryana on 8 December, 2025
CRM-M-50884 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237 CRM-M-50884 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
Shoyab @ Soyab ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Dushyant Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.189 dated 20.05.2025 registered under Sections
331(6), 132 and 121(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections
310(2), 61(2) and 238(C) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act were
added later on), at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna
Nagar.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on
the basis of complaint moved by the complainant-Ankit Kumar who alleged
that on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2025, 15 unknown persons with
muffled faces (including the petitioner), in conspiracy with each other and
armed with dangerous weapons, committed robbery by assaulting the
1 of 4
complainant-a public officer after criminally trespassing into the warehouse,
breaking the lock of the godown and looted 120 confiscated fertilizer bags.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with
the alleged incident. He further contends that the petitioner was neither
present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended
that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the
disclosure statement made by the co-accused. Apart from the disclosure
statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the
offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-
accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further
argued that no test identification parade was conducted by the police in the
present case and the petitioner has been falsely roped in without any
incriminating evidence. He further argued that if the prosecution version is
taken to be true, even then no specific role has been attributed to the present
petitioner. Further, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The
petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2025. The investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed.
There are total 24 prosecution witnesses in this case but none has been
examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and
no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore,
it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Notice of motion.
2 of 4
5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of
the petition, filed custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on
record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by
submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature
and he has not only actively participated in the crime, rather, he is the
principal aggressor. He argued that during investigation, the petitioner has
admitted his guilt and got recovered weapon of offence i.e. danda and
Rs.600/-, which itself shows the involvement of the petitioner in the crime.
He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two more cases
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 06 months; investigation is complete; challan stands
presented; charges framed; no prosecution witness has been examined till
date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial, and will take a long
time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him
in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial
being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
3 of 4
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is
held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out
the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away
from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
08.12.2025 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
