109(2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CRM-M-57677-2025 Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent

2. CRM-M-59858-2025 Lakhwinder Saini @ Lucky Saini ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: 27.03.2026 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present :- Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Advocate (in CRM-M-57677-2025)

Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate (in CRM-M-59858-2025)

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J.

1. By way of this common order, this Court intend to decide abovesaid two petitions as they have arisen out of the same FIR.

2. Prayer in the present petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0129 dated 26.07.2025, under Sections 331(3), 305 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot.

3. Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant-Rakesh Singh. It was alleged that he was doing his own business and was constructing another house adjacent to his house in Raghunath Colony Ladochak in which he had kept the articles of his shop. It was further alleged that on 19.07.2025 at about 07:00 AM, he went to his newly built house and saw that some goods were stolen from there, which included the battery of his scooty, two ceiling fans, one electric motor of 02 horsepower and one AC compressor. It was alleged that when he checked the footage of CCTV camera installed in his house/shop, it was found that on 15.07.2025 at about 03:00 PM, two boys have stolen these goods and they came on motorcycle bearing No.PB-06L-0995 make Splendor colour silver and took the stolen goods on their motorcycle. He searched on his own and found that theft has been committed by Rajesh Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-57677-2025) and Lucky Saini (petitioner in CRM-M-59858- 2025). Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, petitioners approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pathankot praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing counsel for both the sides, the same were declined vide orders dated 01.10.2025 and 11.08.2025, respectively. Hence, being aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present petitions.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present cases. It has been submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 15.07.2025 whereas, the FIR was registered on 26.07.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 10 days. It has been submitted that the identity of the accused persons who have committed theft and stolen the articles is highly doubtful as the same is not apparently established from the alleged CCTV footage. It has been submitted that the alleged motorcycle was recovered by the police from the house of the petitioners and the said motorcycle was not involved in the commission of offence. He submits that the petitioners have not been attributed any specific overt act and nothing is to be recovered from them. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Jagdish Raj, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division City, District Pathankot Haryana has been filed on behalf of respondent-State in the Court today, same is taken on record.

6. Learned State counsel has opposed the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the petitioners, in conspiracy with each other actively participated in the commission of theft and had stolen a battery of scooty, two ceiling fans, one electric motor of 02 horse power and AC compressor from the complainant’s newly built house. He submits that due to non-filing of status report, arrest of the petitioners was stayed by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2025. H