Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Alias Maan vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-38687-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38687-2024
Reserved on: 10.03.2025
Pronounced on: 21.03.2025
Karan @ Maan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Supneet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
149 27.08.2021 Majitha Road, 392/506/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms
Amritsar Act, 1959 (Section 395/120-B/412/414/212/
216 of IPC added later on)
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court
under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 8 of the bail application and the short reply/custody certificate, the
accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR Date Offenses Police
No. Station
1 331 06.12.2020 379-B/323/506/148/149 IPC B. Division,
Amritsar
2 289 25.10.2021 336/427/566/148/149 IPC and Sections B. Division,
25/54/59 of Arms Act Amritsar
3. 146 22.05.2021 336/148/149 IPC and Sections B. Division,
25/54/59 of Arms Act Amritsar
4. 143 07.09.2022 25 (6, 7, 8)/54/59 of Arms Act Majitha Road
5. 194 21.08.2021 379-B/468/411/120-B IPC Cantonment,
Amritsar
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the short reply filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"3. That it is submitted that as per the report furnished by SHO
PS Majitha Road, Amritsar, on 27/08/2021, pursuant to the
information received with respect to the robbery of gold and
silver ornaments committed at the shop of Lal Chand Jewelers,
ASI Gurjeet Singh, In-charge of Police Post Faizpura of Police
Jyoti Sharma Station Majitha Road, Amritsar reached the spot and recorded
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38687-2024
statement of the Complainant Vishnu Soni, wherein it was alleged
that the complainant runs shop namely Lal Chad Jewelers outside
Fairland Colony, main road. On 27/08/2021 at about 3:45 Pm,
the complainant was present at his shop then two Sikh and two
haircut muffled faces youngsters holding pistols in their hands,
came inside the shop of the complainant. One of them pointed
pistol at the complainant and asked him to sit a side and where is
DVR of the CCTV cameras. The complainant pointed towards the
DVR and that person cut the wire of the DVR. Thereafter, the
aforesaid accused persons took out gold ornaments weighing
about 1/2 kg and silver ornaments weighing about 5/6 Kg and
cash about Rs. 01 lac from locker and boxes and fled on two
motorcycles towards Fatehgarh Churian bypass while extending
threat to the complainant that they would kill him if he shouts.
Therefore, on the basis of the above statement, the present case
FIR No. 149. dated 27/08/2021 was initially registered under
Sections 392,506, 34 IPC at Police Station Majitha Road,
Amritsar by ASI Gurjeet Singh."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family. He further submits that petitioner is entitled for bail on parity
with co-accused Satnam Singh @ Sattu who has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 18.01.2023 passed in CRM-M No.55528 of 2022.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the short reply, which
read as follows:
"ROLE OF THE PETITIONER
23. That it is submitted that the present petitioner Karan @ Maan
has played a pivotal role in commission of crime. The present
petitioner Karan @ Maan along with other co-accused persons in
pursuance to the conspiracy hatched between them along with co-
accused Yash, Karan Kumar, Pawan Kumar @ Shiva and Sahil
had entered into the shop of the complainant. The present
petitioner-accused Karan @ Maan cut DVR of CCTV cameras.
Thereafter, they all had looted gold/silver ornaments and cash
amount from the shop of the complainant on pistol point. At that
time, the present petitioner-accused Karan @ Maan was having a
pistol. One plate of silver weighing 730 GM out of the looted
ornaments, which had come in share of the petitioner, was
recovered from his residential house."
7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged
crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction
sentencing.
8. Per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
13.10.2022. Per the custody certificate dated 08.03.2025, the petitioner's total custody in
this FIR is 02 years, 04 months and 14 days. Co-accused has already been granted benefit
of bail, therefore criminal history shall not come in his way.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38687-2024
9. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the
primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, period of custody and the other factors
peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at
this stage.
10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
13. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
15. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the victim and their family members, as well as the members of society, and
incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the
closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict
the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the
preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond
reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction].
Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the
petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the
Jyoti Sharma arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38687-2024
inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this
case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would
instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the
accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
16. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT
of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29,
decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that
"The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that
they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The
courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the
necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of
rights and liberties must be eschewed."
17. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the
victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be
competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves
for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so.
18. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.
19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
20. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
21. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
