[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritik Chauhan vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026
CRM-M-21207-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-21207-2026
Decided on : 24.04.2026
Ritik Chauhan . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner,
during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising
out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Ritik 150 06.04.2024 S. 365, 34 of IPC Pinjore Panchkula
Chauhan [S. 137, 3(5) of BNS, 2023]
[S. 148, 149, 364-A, 386, 452,
120-B of IPC, added later on]
[S. 191(2), 190, 140, 308(2),
331(1), 61 of BNS, 2023] and
25 of Arms Act, 1959
2. In succinctly, the brief facts of the case are as under:-
" Incident took place on 06.04.2024, at about 9:30 PM, when
the complainant - Rishi Pal was taking meal at his home. As per the
allegations, 7/8 boys entered the house and by showing pistol-like
weapons, sticks and rods, kidnapped him from there and forcibly put
him inside a Mahindra XUV-500 car bearing registration No. HR26-
CD-1731 of silver colour. At the time of occurrence, Manjit Kaur
and Ashok Kumar were also sitting there. It is further alleged that the
JAWALA RAM accused had reached the house of the complainant in three vehicles
-- the aforesaid XUV-500, a Swift (black colour) and a Verna (white
colour). After kidnapping the complainant, they proceeded towards
Panchkula-Zirakpur Highway. Thereafter, the complainant was taken
to some deserted place, where the accused persons started
demanding money from him. It is also mentioned in the FIR that
while the complainant was being kidnapped, the accused persons
were calling each other by their names and therefore the complainant
came to know of two names, namely, Anmol and Ankit.
Subsequently, Manjit Kaur was called upon by the accused persons
and ransom amount of ₹25,00,000/- was demanded from her, if she
wanted to see the complainant alive. Later on, after about 2½ hours,
the complainant was dropped near Sector-21, Tau Devi Lal Stadium,
Panchkula, after receipt of the ransom amount."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case, as neither he is named in the
FIR, nor any role has been attributed to him by the complainant at any point
of time, whether during the alleged kidnapping, demand of ransom,
movement in vehicles, or release of the victim Rishi Pal.
It is submitted that the role of the petitioner has surfaced only
through the disclosure statements of the co-accused.
4. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of any overt
act, physical presence, telephonic link, or recovery of any kind, no material
exists to show that the petitioner had any role in the alleged kidnapping or
demand of ransom.
It is further submitted that co-accused, namely (i) Arun Baniwal
@ Arun @ Jagira, (ii) Ankit Giri, (iii) Akash, (iv) Darshan Singh @ Vicky,
(v) Kunal, and (vi) Naveen Kumar @ Naveen, have already been granted
concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.11.2025 passed
in CRM-M-30815-2025 & connected case (Annexure P-2) and dated
06.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-67766-2025 & connected cases (Annexure P-
3).
According to learned counsel, the case of the petitioner stands
on similar footing with the aforesaid co-accused.
5. It is also submitted that the petitioner is inside the jail for a
period of more than 01 year and 11 months and a substantial number of
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Accordingly, on the ground of
parity and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, prayer has been made for
grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate dated 22.04.2026 in Court today. The same is taken on
record. Office is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.
A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the
petitioner.
7. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail,
submits that the allegations in the present case are serious in nature,
involving offences under Sections 364-A and 386 IPC, which carry severe
punishment. It is submitted that the complainant was forcibly kidnapped at
gunpoint and thereafter ransom of Rs.25,00,000/- was extorted before his
release, which reflects pre-planning and organized execution involving a
group of armed persons.
It is further submitted that since the trial is underway, no ground
is made out for grant of regular bail and there is apprehension of tampering
with evidence or influencing witnesses.
However, learned State counsel fairly concedes the other factual
JAWALA RAM submissions noticed here-above.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record with their able assistance, this Court
finds that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been
attributed to him by the complainant in relation to the alleged kidnapping,
demand of ransom, movement of vehicles, or release of the victim.
The implication of the petitioner is stated to have surfaced
subsequently during investigation primarily on the basis of disclosure
statements of the co-accused. The evidentiary value of such material and the
precise extent of involvement of the petitioner are matters to be examined by
the learned trial Court during the course of trial.
It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that
several co-accused, namely Arun Baniwal @ Arun @ Jagira, Ankit Giri,
Akash, Darshan Singh @ Vicky, Kunal and Naveen Kumar @ Naveen, have
already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. Though parity
is not to be applied mechanically, yet the said circumstance is also a relevant
factor for consideration at this stage.
It is also not disputed that the petitioner is inside the jail for a
period of more than 01 year and 11 months. A substantial number of
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and, therefore, the conclusion
of trial is likely to take some time.
So far as the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
regarding tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is concerned,
the same can be adequately taken care of by imposing appropriate
conditions.
9. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner was not named in the
JAWALA RAM FIR; no specific overt act has been attributed to him; period of custody
already undergone; stage of trial; and the principle of parity, this Court is of
the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner would not
serve any useful purpose.
Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,
the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail,
subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case.
10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly
or indirectly.
11. Any of the discussion done and recorded here-above, shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore,
trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on
the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in
accordance with law.
12. Petition stands disposed of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 24, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
