IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Pardeep ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. R.K.Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

47 18.02.2024 IMT, Rohtak 406 IPC (Sections 407/420/465/

467/468/471/483/120-B/201 IPC added later on)

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

2. Per paragraph 18 of the bail application and 11 of the reply dated 04.09.2025 filed by the State, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1 786 11.10.2015 302/201/392/414/34 IPC Civil Lines, Karnal and Section 25 of Arms Act

2 109 2020 42 of Prisons Act Ram Nagar, Karnal

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

“2. That the facts of the case are that a complaint has been moved by complainant Ashok son of Raja Ram, resident of Village Boliya, Tehsil Gharoth, District Mansor, Madhya Pradesh alleging therein that he is working as Clerk/Munshi in Diwakar Trading Company situated at Boliya. On 16.02.2024, the owner of the company had demanded a truck from Jal Bhawani Roadlines Mansor Transport, upon which, Jai Bhagwan Roadlines had sent a truck bearing No. UP-31-AT-7576. The owner of the said truck was Deepak son of Baljeet, resident of H.No. 1468, Himtana Pana Mundiana, District Sonepat and driver of the truck was Sunil son of Suresh Kumar, resident of Ward No.5, Rohtak. The owner and driver of the aforesaid truck came to the company and owner of the company got loaded 30 tones 40 kilograms of mustard crop amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs in the said truck and he was sent by the company to Bhiwani with the truck. On 17.02.2024, at about 10.30 p.m., when they reached Outer Bypass Delhi Road, Rohtak then owner of the truck namely Deepak on the pretext of drinking tea or water, he took him off the truck, put him in an auto and took him to Delhi bypass and asked him to reach where the truck was standing. When he reached where he took him off the truck, he found the truck missing. He searched the truck at his own level but did not find. Thereafter, he called the owner of the truck through his mobile phone but the mobile phone was found switched off. The complainant prayed to take appropriate action against the culprits. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, a case vide FIR No.47 dated 18/2/2024 U/s

406 IPC was registered at P.S.-IMT, Rohtak.”

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 petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. It would be appropriate to refer to para 10 of the reply, which read as follows:

“10. That the specific role of the petitioner is that he provide the forged documents to co-accused and on the basis of which the accused were using the truck in question. The petitioner also helped the accused persons in selling the stolen mustard in grain market. The petitioner was actively involved in whole criminal conspiracy and he has taken away the driver of truck with him for taki