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

Present : Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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(4), 304, 238(b) of BNS (as per final report) and Sections 25 and 29 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 counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR nor he had participated in the occurrence in any manner. Even as per the case set up by the prosecution, the petitioner had only supplied the weapons. Learned counsel further contends that even otherwise, he had neither demanded any amount from anyone nor had participated in the main occurrence, as per the prosecution itself. He further 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. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 28.04.2025 and is in custody since then. After his arrest, the investigation has been completed and challan has been presented against him. 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.

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. He further submits that the petitioner was engaged in supplying the weapons to the co-accused in the present case and does not deserve the bail. He further submits that there are two more cases registered against the petitioner meaning thereby he is an habitual offender.

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

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not participated in the main occurrence in any manner. The only role assigned to him is that he had supplied the weapons to co-accused. 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 06 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 circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subjec