IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-69927-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.03.2026 Ashish Baghel ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Soeb Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

(through Video Conferencing)

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana Mr. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier 439 Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 68 dated 31.03.2025, registered under Sections 127(2) and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 (1-B)(a) and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.03.2025, ASI Sanjeet received information regarding a robbery at Sai Kunj Asha Medicare Store, Gurugram. Upon receiving the said information, ASI Sanjeet along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence where the complainant Mukesh Kumar, who was working at the said medical store, made a statement. As per the statement of the complainant, on 30.03.2025 at about 10:10 PM, three boys came to the medical store. Two of them were wearing helmets of green and black colour while the third boy was not wearing any helmet. One of them demanded certain medicines namely Zeptol etc. and when the complainant stated that the said medicines were not available, another boy demanded some other medicine. When the complainant started searching for the same, one of the boys pointed a country- made pistol at him and closed the shutter of the shop. It is alleged that the accused persons took away the money lying in the cash counter and threatened to kill the complainant before fleeing from the spot. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner Ashish Baghel was apprehended and it is alleged that a sum of Rs.13,000/-, a country-made pistol and the helmet allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were recovered from his possession. The clothes allegedly worn by the petitioner at the time of occurrence were also recovered during the investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the same was registered against unknown persons. It is also contended that no specific amount of robbery has been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. Learned counsel has further argued that no Test Identification Parade was ever conducted and there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the amount allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/-, which cannot be connected with the alleged occurrence. It is also argued that the pistol which has been shown to be recovered in the present case was actually handed over to the police by the co- accused Ashutosh and not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on parity with the co-accused Ajay, who has already been granted the concession of bail. The role attributed to the said co-accused Ajay and the present petitioner is similar in nature. It is further submitted that the remaining co-accused have also been granted bail and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report, which are taken on record and has opposed the present bail petition. He has submitted that serious allegations h