IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.03.2025 Pronounced on: 11.03.2025 Jaan Mohd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

25 12.03.2024 Sadar Sohna, 379, 465, 467, 468, 471, 411, District Gurugram 34, 420, 120-B, 201 IPC

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 11 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 317/2023 - 457, 380 IPC Shahjahpur 2. 279/2021 - 379 IPC HSIDC Bari

3. 548/2021 - 379 IPC Tosham

4. 427 26.06.2024 411 IPC and Arms Act Sadar Gurugram

5. 191/2024 - 397 IPC Jhajjar

6. 12/2023 - 379, 411 IPC Rasoolpur

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:

“3. That the brief facts of the case are that that on 12.03.2024, complainant Rakesh Sharma presented an application in the police station with allegations that he was engaged in the business of Transport. On 11.3.2024, at about 8.a.m. when he woke up, he found that his vehicle Tata Sigana bearing registration No. HR55AL-9074 was missing and was stolen by some unknown person. Legal action was sought.”

4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:

“11. That it is apposite to mention that the petitioner is a habitual criminal and is at the helm of an organised gang involved in crime of truck theft. He was the person who had committed the theft of the vehicle belonging to the complainant and thereafter the same had been sold by him to the co-accused Mohd. Niyaj. The proceeds of sale had been credited to the account belonging to the petitioner.”

REASONING:

7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.

8. Per paragraph 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 30.06.2024. Stolen vehicle, chasis, engine etc. have already been recovered. The petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is more than 08 months.

9. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1. AADHAR number

2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

13. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.

14