Nasib Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 Nasib Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Pranshul Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Punyaveet, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.384, dated 30.05.2024, under Sections 379-A and 34 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Yog Bala, wife of Ajay Kumar. It was alleged that on 30.05.2024, at about 06:00 P.M., she was returning home from the market and when she was entering her house, a person came from behind and snatched her gold chain. It was alleged that another person was waiting on the motorcycle and on snatching the chain, both of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The request was made

-2to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M-64590-2024, however the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.01.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, however during the investigation, he has been implicated in the present case. He has submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the chain was snatched by the co-accused and not by the petitioner. He has submitted that the recovery of stolen chain has also been effected from the co-accused. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest and the complainant also stands examined. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

-34.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioner was duly established during the investigation. He has submitted that the petitioner along with the coaccused had committed the offence. He, on instructions from ASI Munish Kumar, has submitted that out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, only the complainant has been examined and she has supported the case of prosecution. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 26.08.2024. As per the case of prosecution, the recovery of stolen chain has been effected from the co-accused. The complainant-victim already stands examined. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 02 months and 08 days as on 04.11.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness, i.e. the complainant has been examined.

7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

8.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the

-4sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail.

9.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 06.11.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No