##PAGE1##

CRM-M-18790-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(216) CRM-M-18790-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 16.04.2026 DEVENDER @ SUBHASH

... Petitioner Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Virender Ahlawat, Advocate for

Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.190 dated 10.12.2024 registered under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 310(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 25(1A) and 29 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station

Jatusana, District Rewari.

2. As per the allegations, on the intervening night of 09/10.12.2024 at about 10 PM, a secret information was received that 4-5 persons were present in a tubewell room on the kacha rasta of Village Berli to Dehlawas. They were armed with weapons and they were planning to commit some offence of dacoity.

AMIT SHARMA

2026.04.16 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-18790-2026 (O&M) 2

It was also informed that they could be apprehended, if raid was conducted immediately. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended the petitioner and the co-accused. Recovery of 01 countrymade pistol, 03 live cartridges and 01 torch was effected from the petitioner, whereas recovery of illicit arms and ammunitions were recovered from the co-accused as well. The arms and

ammunitions were taken into custody. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of more than one year. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 out of 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. There are no chances of his intimidating the witnesses since they are police officials. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His involvement in other cases cannot be a ground to deny benefit of bail to him. The co-accused have already been extended benefit of regular bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is thus argued that he deserves to be released on

bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in 14 other cases of serious nature. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is,

therefore, argued that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

AMIT SHARMA

2026.04.16 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-18790-2026 (O&M) 3

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by both the

parties.

6. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy to commit the offence of dacoity as on 09/10.12.2024. Recovery of some weapons had also been effected from him. It is only on the basis of thorough assessment of the evidence to be adduced during trial that any conclusion as to the fact that whether actually some conspiracy to commit offence of dacoity was hatched, is to be drawn but not at this stage. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of more than one year and four months. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. Similarly situated co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Even otherwise pre-trial incarceration should not