[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadam Alias Buchiya vs State Of Haryana on 4 December, 2025
CRM-M-61406-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
258 CRM-M-61406-2025
Date of Decision: 04.12.2025
Sadam @ Buchiya ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, 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.29 dated 20.01.2025 registered under Sections
304, 309(4), 311 and 238(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ellenabad, District
Sirsa.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with
other co-accused Sadam @ Irfan @ Faan, robbed the complainant for
Rs.15,000/- on gun point and also inflicted injuries to him. Hence, the
present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argues that the petitioner
1 of 4
was neither named in the FIR nor has any concern with the said incident and
initially, the FIR in question was registered against unknown persons. He
further argues that no test identification parade was conducted by the police
during the investigation and the petitioner has been falsely roped up without
any incriminating evidence. He submits that no specific role has been
attributed to the present petitioner in the offence in question. He further
argues that as per the prosecution, the accused persons had come on a motor-
cycle to the liquor shop and committed robbery of Rs.15,000/- but in the
FIR, neither any description of the alleged motor-cycle was given, nor any
registration number has been mentioned. Further, co-accused Sadam @
Irfan @ Faan, who was on similar footing with the petitioner, has already
been granted the concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, vide order dated 30.07.2025. The petitioner is in custody since
17.02.2025 and nothing is to be recovered from him. The investigation in
the case is complete and challan stands presented. He further submits that
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. On the other hand, learned State counsel, replying upon the
status report, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by
submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.
He argues that during investigation on 20.02.2025, the petitioner along with
co-accused Sadam @ Irfan @ Faan, suffered disclosure statement and
admitted his guilt. He further argues that the petitioner along with co-
accused had also got demarcated the place of occurrence and was also
2 of 4
identified by the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is
involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
5. 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 09 months; investigation is complete; challan stands
filed; co-accused Sadam @ Irfan @ Faan has been granted bail by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, 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.
6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein the 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 her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
7. 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
3 of 4
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."
8. 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)
04.12.2025 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
