IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 15.10.2025 Amit ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma and Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishan Lal Saini, Senior DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.767 dated 01.12.2024, registered under Sections 308(5), 351(3), 111 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kundli, Sonepat.

2. As per prosecution story, 8-10 persons came to the hotel of complainant and demanded Rs.4,00,000/- on gun point. They snatched Rs.43,000/- from the complainant, Rs.53,000/- from one Ajim and Rs.2500/-

and one mobile from one Imran and gave beatings to them.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the present FIR. Even the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Learned Senior counsel further contends that even otherwise, he had neither demanded any amount from anyone nor had participated in the main occurrence. He contends that the said incident occurred on 14.11.2024 but the FIR in question was registered on 01.12.2024 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 17 days, casting a serious doubt on the prosecution story. He contends that no test identification parade was conducted, therefore, there is a dent in the prosecution story. The petitioner is in custody since 02.12.2024. Nothing is to be recovered from him. After his arrest, the investigation has been completed and challan has been presented against him. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He further submits that co-accused Ashish has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025, passed in CRM-M-19183-2025 and prays that the present petition be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and his presence at the crime scene is verified from CCTV footage. He further submits that if the petitioner is released on bail he may influence the witnesses or temper with the evidence. However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is the first time offender and is not involved in any other case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. It is an admitted fact that the no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Challan has been presented, charges have been framed and the case is now fixed for PWs. Further, co-accused Ashish has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025, passed in CRM-M-19183-2025. Moreover, the petitioner is stated in to be in custody for the last about more than 10 months. Thus, the further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstan