IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.227 Decided On : September 17, 2025 Prempal @ Leela .... Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * *

Present : Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. K. Garg, DAG, Haryana.

* * *

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J . :

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.190 dated 10.12.2024, under Sections 310(4), 310(5) and 310(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 25(1A) and 29 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the basis of secret information, on 09.12.2024 at about 10:00 PM, Sub Inspector Vikram Singh nabbed five persons from a tubewell room on the ‘kacha rasta’ from Berli to Dehlawas. All those persons were planning dacoity on weapon point. On inquiry, they disclosed their names as Devender @ Subhash @ Mota, Jagdish @ Lambu @ Lali, Raj, Mukesh @ Ramu and Prem Pal @ Leela. From their possession, five country-made pistols, live cartridges and torches were recovered. Accordingly, FIR in question was registered against all of them.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. No robbery had been committed by the petitioner. The recovery of one country-made pistol and two live cartridges had been implanted upon the petitioner. No specific role has been assigned to him. Learned counsel further submitted that the investigation in this case is complete and Challan had already been presented before the concerned Court. He has further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

Per Contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail petition while contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific. He had been found in possession of illicit weapon and was planning to commit dacoity along with other co-accused. He further submitted that some other cases are also pending against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender. So, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

As per the allegations, the petitioner was found sitting along with co-accused and planning for dacoity at weapon point. However, neither any robbery nor any untoward incident had been reported to have been caused by the petitioner or other co-accused. The alleged recovery from the petitioner had already been effected. As per the Custody Certificate dated 16.09.2025, which has been placed on record today in the Court, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 09 months and 07 days in the present case.

Trial of the case is going on, which is likely to take considerable time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

September 17, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR)

monika JUDGE