Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.886 dated 14.11.2023, registered at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa, under Sections 201, 379-A, 411 IPC.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 2 years and 11 days. He alleges false implication. As per the prosecution version, he was only riding the motor-cycle and allegations are against the co-accused, who was his pillion and snatched the chain, against him there were 19 cases also, has been granted bail, vide order dated 20.03.2025, Annexure P-3. Charges were framed on 20.03.2024 and out of 11, 8 including material witnesses, stand examined. He is involved in 9 more cases wherein he is on bail, but for three. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 04.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2 years and 11 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of being alongwith the co-accused, who snatched the gold chain from the wife of the complainant. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; co-accused having been released on bail and the petitioner being on bail in most of other cases.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years and 11 days; on bail in most of other cases; co-accused is on bail, charges stand framed on 20.03.2024; 8 witnesses including the complainant, have been examined out of 11; the trial is likely to take a considerable time and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the af