117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Karanbir Singh @ Karan ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.26 dated 23.03.2024, registered under Sections 379-B(2) IPC (Section 411 IPC added vide Rapat No.17 dated 27.06.2024 and thereafter deleted vide Rapat No.23 dated 06.07.2024), at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Amrit Hans. It was alleged that on 23.03.2024, at about 07:30 p.m., the complainant on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-02-EH-9315 make Splendor black coloured, was going from his house to Varaich Dehri near Satsang Ghar Dera Radha Swami Kathunagal Road Majitha, then three persons, with muffled faces, armed with Datar, came on motorcycle from Majitha Side and snatched his motorcycle and mobile phone and went towards Kathunangal side. It was alleged by the complainant that he could identify the persons on being presented before him. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner was surfaced on the basis of his own disclosure statement suffered by him in another FIR No.36 dated 10.04.2024. Thus, he was brought on production warrants and was arrested in the present case on 11.04.2024. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar 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 11.07.2025. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-10277-2025, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.05.2025. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present second petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.03.2024. It was alleged by the complainant that the assailants were with muffled faces, however, without there being any evidence regarding the identity of the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on 11.04.2024 in the present case only on the basis of presumption and assumptions and since then, he is behind the bars. He submits that though the petitioner was falsely implicated in other two cases, however, he is on bail in the same. It is submitted that custody of the petitioner is almost about 2 years, but till now, there is no progress in the trial and thus, his right of speedy trial is miserably defeated. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has also opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. She submits that in the present case, the stolen motorcycle and mobile phone were recovered from him. She submits that the petitioner was arrested in another case in which he made a disclosure statement about his complicity in the present case and thus, he was brought on production warrants in this case and was arrested on 11.04.2024. On instructions, she submits that out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counse