Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sagar @ Ankit vs State Of Haryana on 26 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(240) CRM-M-65283-2025
Date of decision: 26.11.2025
Date of uploading: 26.11.2025
Sagar @ Ankit ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS
2023 on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR
No.319 dated 11.08.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 3(5), 308(5), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 111(3) and 61 of
BNS 2023 added later on) at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the
petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:-
"To The SHO Sahib, Police Station Taraori. Sir, It is
requested that I am Arvind Kumar son of Devraj resident of
Laxmi Colony, Taraori. I have small property business. On dated
04.08.2024, I received a whatsapp call 0 my phone
No.9034051421, No.351969711728 at 2:21 in which a person
introduced himself as Bhanu Rana and asked me to give him
1 of 5
CRM-M-65283-2025 Page |2
Rs.50 lakh protection money (Ransum) within 2 days otherwise I
will get you and your family shot dead. I tried to dissuade him but
he again threatened to get me and my family killed. I tried to
dissuade him but he again threatened to get me and my family
killed. Since that day I am continuously receiving calls on my
number from the same number and Bhanu Rana is talking about
killing me and asking me to give him ransom money. I answered
his call. I have made the recording from another phone and have
attacked that recording with this application. Sir, I suspect that
two persons named Rajinder Rana (9996126063) and his son
Abhey Rana are also involved in this heinous matter because one
and a half months ago I saw Abhay Rana roaming around my
office in a suspicious condition and I have also attached the
footage of some other persons around my house which is
recorded by my house CAMERA and I have also attached that
with my application and Rajinder Rana and Abhay Rana father
and son, had threatened me regarding an earlier deal that they
would see me. You are requested to take strictest action on my
application. Sd/- Arvind Kumar"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the petitioner is in
custody since 14.08.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the co-
accused namely Rajinder Singh, who is similarly situated as the petitioner
(herein) has been extended the concession of regular bail vide order dated
28.02.2025 passed in CRM-M-63103-2024 (Annexure P-3). Thus, regular
bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in
nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
2 of 5
CRM-M-65283-2025 Page |3
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
25.11.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone
through the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2024 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 13.11.2024.
Total 25 prosecution witness have been cited, out of which none has been
examined till date. It is not in dispute that culmination of trial will take its
own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues
shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not
deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage,
lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to
indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of
justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 25.11.2025 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period
of 5 months and 15 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the
petitioner is stated to be involved in 05 more cases. However, this factum
cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular
bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for
grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a
Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of
3 of 5
CRM-M-65283-2025 Page |4
Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this
Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of
Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in
custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty
Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence,
oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while
on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to
the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police
Station and shall not change his cell-phone number
without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay
the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
4 of 5
CRM-M-65283-2025 Page |5
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
26.11.2025
Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
