[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Alias Chhotu vs State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2026
CRM-M No.71630 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
*****
CRM-M No.71630 of 2025
Date of decision : 22.1.2026
Date of uploading : 22.1.2026
Ravi @ Chhotu .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.187 dated 3.6.2023 under
Sections 379-B of the IPC and Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act, 1959
(Sections 483 and 34 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station
Civil Line, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant,
namely, Meenakshi Sharma, wife of Saurabh Sharma, resident of House
No. 52, Sector 19-I, HUDA, Kaithal, alleged that on 03.06.2023, at about
11:15 a.m., while she was returning from Shiv Mandir along with her
two-year-old son, two boys arrived on a motorcycle bearing registration
number HR-07AS-3039. The boy seated on the pillion seat (petitioner
1 of 5
herein) forcibly snatched the gold chain weighing approximately two tolas
that she was wearing around her neck. When she raised an alarm, the
assailants assaulted her by giving fist blows, and one of them took out a
pistol from his pant and threatened her with dire consequences, stating
that he would kill her if she continued to raise an alarm. In the meantime,
Rajender, son of Surajbhan, resident of House No. 296, Nehru Garden
Colony, Kaithal, arrived at the spot, upon seeing whom the assailants fled
from the scene.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 3.6.2023. Learned counsel has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2½
years. Learned counsel has also argued that there are material
discrepancies in the testimony of the FIR-complainant. Thus, regular bail
is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature
and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate
dated 20.1.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 3.6.2023, whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on
2 of 5
21.11.2023. Charges in the instant case have been framed on 14.12.2023.
Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 2 have
been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the FIR-complainant has
been examined as prosecution witness. It would be apposite to refer herein
to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof
reads as under:-
"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective
of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency
as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution."
6.1 The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues
which shall essentially 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
3 of 5
evidence.
6.2 As per custody certificate dated 20.01.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 2 years, 6 months and 17 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the
antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering
a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 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, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
4 of 5
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
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.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
22.1.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
