213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2025 Joginder Singh alias Joga ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.163 dated 24.06.2024 under Sections 395/412/201/120-B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered 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 Chhachhraull, District Yamunanagar, 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 05 persons have been nominated as an accused in the FIR (supra) and 04 of the co- accused, namely, Ravi Kumar, Imran, Mohd. Mehlood and Mohit, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.01.2025, 05.02.2025, 11.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 passed in CRM-M-65317- 2024 (O&M), CRM-M-5613-2025, CRM-M-6751-2025 and CRM-M-9524- 2025 (O&M), respectively. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 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, the learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the leader of the gang and he is involved in three more cases, as such, being a habitual offender, he is not entitled to any relief.

6. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for