[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Verma Alias Jeewan Kumar Alias ... vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-2626-202
2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2626-2026 (O&M)
ARUN VERMA @ JEEWAN KUMAR @ RAJESH VERMA
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.03.2026
website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. M.N. Jajoria, Advocate and
Ms. Lavanya Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")
for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.
No.111
111 dated 06.12.2014
registered under Sections 328, 457, 380 and 489 of IPC at Police Station
Bakshiwal, District Patiala.
1 of 4
CRM-M-2626-202
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement
got recorded by the complainant Ranjit Singh alleging that on the evening of
09.11.2014,, the petitioner-Arun
petitioner Arun Verma who was got acquainted with the
complainant through his relative Gurcharan Sing
Singh only 01 year back, alongwith
his wifee and 02 daughters came to his house. They had su
supper
per with them and
thereafter wished to drink milk. The mother of the complainant started going to
kitchen to give warm milk to the petitioner and his family but the accused
Seema Verma insisted that she herself
h would make the milk warm and bring it.
Thereafter, all of them had taken milk brought by Seema Verma and had gone to
sleep. On the next morning, on waking up,
up the complainant and his family
members found that the locks of the trunk were lying broken and all the
belongings of his house were found scattered. By alleging that by mixing some
intoxicating substance in the milk given to them with intent to commit the
offence of theft, robbery in his house, the petitioner and the co
co-accused
accused had
made them unconscious and had stolen cash amount of Rs.22,000/
Rs.22,000/-,, some
dollars and gold ornaments kept in the house.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.
The petitioner and his wife were arrested on 22.12.2014. One gold bangle,, 02
gold topus, 02 rings and Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ and 200 Australian dollars pertaining to the
complainant were recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner was
extended benefit of bail. During trial,
trial he absented himself due to which his bail
was cancelled on 06.11.2015 and bonds were forfeited to the State. He was
declared a proclaimed person. He was subsequently arrested on 04.07.2025.
2 of 4
CRM-M-2626-202
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of 01 year now.
The trial will take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by
detaining him in custody anymore. His absence was not intentional. His
implication in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying
benefit of bail to him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. It is,
therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is an
absconder and remained absconded
absconded for a period of about 10 years. The trial has
concluded as all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is at
the stage of producing defence evidence. As such, there are no chances of delay
in conclusion of the trial. Rather there are chances of petitioner's absconding
again, if extended benefit of bail. His antecedents are also not clean. It is,
therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties at considerable length.
7. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused
accused who is his wife is alleged
to have administered some intoxicating substance to the complainant and his
other family members on the fateful night of 09.
09.11.2014 with intent to commit
the offence of theft and in pursuance thereof, is alleged to have stolen valuable
articles and money from the house of the complainant. T
The
he petitioner remained
absconding for a period of about 10 years. He had been arrested only on
04.07.2025.
.2025. The trial has almost concluded now and as such it cannot be stated
3 of 4
CRM-M-2626-202
that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Taking into
consideration the act and conduct of the petitioner, his involvement in other
cases including case registered
registered under the provisions of Section 174A of IPC and
the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petition does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly,
the petition is dismissed.
7. It is made clear
clear that any observation made herein above is only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing
on the merits of the case.
8. Since the main petition has been dismissed
dismissed, pending application, if
any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
23.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
