Arshad vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 2691 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Arshad vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2026

                                                                           1
CRM-
CRM-M-10270-
      10270-2026




124
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                            CRM-
                            CRM-M-10270-
                                  10270-2026

Arshad
                                                                ....Petitioner
                                                                  Petitioner

                                     versus
State of Haryana
                                                              ....Respondent
Date of decision: March 19,
                        19, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 19,
                          19, 2026

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. Soeb Khan, Advocate for the petitioner
            (presence
             presence marked through video
                                     video--conferencing).
                                            conferencing

            Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

                                     *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (Section 439

Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.193

dated 23.05.2010, registered under under Sections 395 395,, 397, 201 and 412 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Camp Palwal,

District Palwal. The first two bail pleas of the petitioner were dismissed as

withdrawn, vide orders dated 11.08.2025 and 16.02.2026, respectively.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioners is that the

complainant, namely, Sudhir, along with his family, was travelling from

no.HR-51-AF-4575 via Delhi to Etawah in a Tata Safari bearing registration no.HR

1 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

Palwal. At approximately 2:00 AM, after crossing Palwal, their vehicle was

intercepted by a white Tata Safari bearing registration No.UP-14-AV-6239,

which had a blue beacon affixed to it. Believing it to be a government

vehicle, the driver of the complainant stopped the car. Three individuals

alighted from the intercepted vehicle and falsely claimed that they had met

with a roadside accident. They then opened the doors and forcibly entered

the complainant's vehicle. Subsequently, two more individuals from the

same vehicle joined them inside. The accused persons then directed the

complainant's vehicle towards village Pahadi, where they robbed the

complainant and his wife of their jewellery. They also looted one laptop, one

handycam, cash amounting to ₹3,00,000, a licensed revolver belonging to

the complainant, the Tata Safari vehicle, and five mobile phones. The

accused were armed with country-made pistols. Thereafter, they took the

complainant and his family to village Khilluka, where they tied them up and

fled the scene. The complainant and his family somehow managed to free

themselves and subsequently reached Police Station Hathin, Palwal, to

report the incident.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare

perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner

are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has

further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in

question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not named in

the FIR. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been implicated

on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not tenable

2 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

in law and the same cannot be the basis for showing complicity of the

petitioner in the offence in question. Learned counsel has further iterated

that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel

has argued that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the

petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that no Test Identification

Parade (TIP) was conducted in this case. It has been submitted that the trial

is delayed and folly thereof is no attributable to the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel has also argued that co-accused of the

petitioner, namely, Ahmed has been accorded concession of regular bail, by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order dated 04.03.2023.

3.2. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from

the petitioner. Learned counsel has further stated that after completion of

investigation, the challan stands presented on 09.11.2024, and out of total 29

prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date. Learned counsel

have further argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more

than 01½ years, and, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping

him behind bars further. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an

affidavit dated 16.03.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State

counsel has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that

there are grave/serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned State

counsel has argued that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, was

declared proclaimed offenders, on 30.12.2012 and has been arrested on

3 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

19.09.2024, i.e., after more than 12 years. Learned State counsel has

submitted that the petitioner has the active role in committing the heinous

offence of Dacoity, caused grievous hurt to the complainant-side and has

dishonestly received the looted articles and misappropriated the said

property.

4.1. Learned State counsel has argued that, in case, the petitioner is

granted concession of regular bail, there is all likelihood that he may

abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution

evidence/witnesses. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the

petitions in hand is entreated for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the paper-book.

6. As per prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner

are grave and serious in nature. A perusal of the prosecution case disclose a

well-planned and premeditated act of armed robbery, wherein the accused

persons, by impersonating government officials using a vehicle fitted with a

blue beacon, deceitfully intercepted the complainant and his family during

late night hours. The manner in which the offence was executed--by

forcibly entering the vehicle, threatening the victims at gunpoint with

country-made pistols, and subsequently robbing them of valuable articles

including cash, jewellery, licensed weapon, electronic items, and the vehicle

itself--clearly establishes the serious and organized nature of the crime.

6.1. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, along

with co-accused, not only committed robbery/ dacoity, but also wrongfully

4 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

confined the complainant and his family by tying them up in a remote

village, thereby endangering their lives and safety. The conduct of the

accused reflects complete disregard for law and public order, and such

offences have a deep impact on the sense of security among the general

public. The possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses, tampering

with evidence, or absconding cannot be ruled out, particularly considering

the coordinated manner in which the offence was carried out.

6.2. Further, a perusal of the status report ibid reveals that the

petitioner, along with his co-accused, had been declared a proclaimed

offender in the year 2012 and was apprehended only in 2024. This clearly

demonstrates that the petitioner had deliberately evaded the process of law

for a prolonged period of time. Such conduct reflects a strong likelihood of

absconding and a blatant disregard for the authority of law. The petitioner's

past conduct, in remaining absconding for over a decade, also disentitles him

from the discretionary relief of regular bail, as there exists a substantial risk

that he may again evade trial proceedings if released on bail.

6.3. Indubitably, co-accused of the petitioner, namely Ahmed, has

been granted the concession of regular bail, vide order dated 04.03.2023

passed by the learned Court below. However, a perusal of the said order

reveals that the said application was the second attempt made by the co-

accused to secure regular bail. It is further evident that the concession of bail

was granted on specific grounds, inter alia, that the looted articles had been

recovered from another co-accused, no further evidence had been led by the

prosecution, despite effective opportunities, after the dismissal of the earlier

5 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

bail application, and the father of the said co-accused was suffering from

illness. In the present case, as per prosecution case, the petitioner had

received the looted articles and misappropriated the said property. One

prosecution witness, namely, FIR-complainant stands examined. Thus, the

petitioner cannot seek parity with the concession afforded to his co-accused,

as aforesaid.

7. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the

court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and

principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and

the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must

evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the

accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the

likely sentence upon conviction. The Court must also assess the likelihood

of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability

of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the

accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the

character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall

conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court must

weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice

or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State through

C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant

whereof reads as under:

"14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable

6 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme

179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the Court 179 evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 252544 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338."

This Court also in specific terms held that :

"the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

7 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

8. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are specific,

grave and well defined, which prima facie indicate active participation of the

petitioner in the commission of the offence. In the considered opinion of this

Court, gravity and seriousness of the crime clearly disentitle the petitioner to

the discretionary relief of bail. At this stage, no accentuating circumstances

have been made which may, prima facie, constitute a compelling ground for

the grant of regular bail to the petitioner; especially in light of the gravity of

the allegations, conduct of the petitioner and the evidence on record. It also

deserves emphasis that offences of this nature strike at the very root of

public order, undermine the rule of law, and shock the conscience of society.

Grant of bail, in such cases, may send a wrong signal to society and

undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

Furthermore, there exists a real and tangible apprehension that if enlarged on

bail, the petitioner may abscond to evade trial or attempt to influence,

threaten, or intimidate prosecution witnesses; especially when several

witnesses are yet to be examined and the prosecution evidence is still to

unfold.

8.1. The plea regarding false implication of the petitioner shall, but

of-course, be ratiocinated upon during trial. As per prosecution case, upon

culmination of investigation, final report/ challan was presented on

09.11.2024 and even charges stand framed on 07.03.2025. Out of total 29

cited prosecution witnesses, 01 has been examined.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession

8 of 9

CRM-

CRM-M-10270- 10270-2026

of regular bail. Accordingly, the petition in hand is, thus, devoid of merits

and is hereby dismissed.

dismissed

10. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove

shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency

as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without

being influenced with this order.

11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE March 19, 19, 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

9 of 9