IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13289-2026 Date of decision: 24.03.2026 JITENDER ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.362 dated 14.05.2019 registered under Sections

303, 3(5) of BNS, at Police Station Mujessar Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that the petitioner along with co-accused snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and fled away after pushing him. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He submits that the petitioner was granted concession of regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.03.2020 and was regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court. However, he could not appear on 15.01.2025 due to some misunderstanding between him and his counsel as he had noted wrong date of hearing. Accordingly vide order dated

15.01.2025, his bail was cancelled and warrants of arrest were issued against him. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in another case on 05.07.2025. He submits that his absence was unintentional. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has filed the custody certificate in the matter, which is taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the petitioner had willfully absented himself before the learned Trial Court. She has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months; petitioner was on regular bail however, due to some inadvertence he absented himself on 15.01.2025 and was again arrested on 05.07.2025 in another case and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant por