234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.01.2026 Ashok @ Doga ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.1296 dated 28.12.2017, registered under Sections 392 IPC and Sections 25, 54 of Arms Act, 1959 (Challan was presented under Sections 379-B, 392 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act) at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karnal.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case has been lodged on the statement of the complainant, namely, Narender son of Ishwar Singh. It was alleged that on 27.12.2017 at about 11:15 p.m., after closing his Cafe restaurant, the complainant was going in his Skoda car bearing No.HR99-QTP-4076 and when he reached near Pingli Chowk, one black Scorpio came from behind and overtook his car and came in front of him, 5-6 young boys came out of Scorpio car and one of them threatened him with desi katta. They snatched Rs.15,000/- from him and his car was taken away by them and the complainant was made to sit in their Scorpio car and thereafter, he was thrown out of the car near Jundla. The complainant reached his home on foot. Request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, on the disclosure statement made by co-accused Krishan @ Gada and Pawan @ Pona, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in this case. He was arrested on 12.12.2019. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Pawan @ Pona. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 05.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-44482-2024, whereby, co- accused Pawan @ Pona has been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in 20 other cases. However, she has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co- accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that role of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Pawan @ Pona. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 12.12.2019. Co-accused, namely, Pawan @ Pona is on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with him. Custody certificate of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 06 years, 01 months & 11 days as on 22.01.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 20-21 other cases, out of which in 07 cases, he has been acquitted, in 08 cases he has been convicted and 06 cases are under trial.

6. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. According