Prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21 rights; co-accused receiving bail strengthens the case for bail.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS , 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 163 dated 24.06.2024 registered under Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 120-B , 201, 395 and 412 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. The case set up in the FIR (supra) (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows :

'The summary of the case is as follows, that on 24.06.2024, the complainant Ashok Kumar son of Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, House No.5/99, Mohalla Kanhaiya Lal Chhachhrauli, District Yamun-anagar, came to the police station Chhachhrauli and presented an application which is under. To the Police Station House Officer Chhachhrauli, request that I, Ashok Kumar son of Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, resident of House No.5/99, Mohalla Kanhaiya Lal Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar. I have a plywood factory in the name of Shri Vaishnavi Products in Village Hadauli, which we set up in the year 2019. Our factory has been closed for about 18 months. We have kept two watchmen there, out of which one is Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Chhagelal, resident of Village Nagalakhuru, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and another namely Jaikumar son of Shri Roshan Lal, resident of Hadauli, District Yamunanagar. On 24-06-2024, around 5:00 AM, I received a call informing me about a theft in the factory. After which I reached the spot and found both the watchmen there. They told me that around 12 in the night, 5 unknown youths entered the factory from the back door. They might have more accomplices behind them. They tore our clothes and held us hostage with those clothes. Then they opened the transformer at the back and took away copper coils and all the valuables from inside it. While leaving, they broke the lock of the office and took away the DVR of the camera. Hence, I request you to recover our belongings and take strict action against the accused. SD Ashok Kumar Ashok Kumar XXXXXX........Police proceedings.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that as per the case set up by the prosecution, the co-accused Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Nannu had committed the alleged crime and the petitioner is not named in the FIR(supra) and the aforementioned co-accused Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Nannu has already been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-65317-2024 and further the other co-accused namely Imran has also been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed in CRM-M-5613-2025 and aforementioned co-accused were also involved in other cases and they have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court and that case of the petitioner is on a better footing than the aforementioned co-accused namely Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Nannu.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that investigation of the case is complete and challan stands presented on 16.10.2024 and there are total 24 prosecution witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of which, none has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate today in the Court which is taken on record and he opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender, involved in 07 more FIRs, however, he could not controvert the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner - Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Nannu has already been granted the concession of regular bail, who was also said to be involved in other FIRs.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing