Arjun Singh Chauhan v. State Of Haryana
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 20.05.2026 Arjun Singh Chauhan . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Afjal Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. P.K. Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District Arjun Singh Chauhan 254 28.12.2025 S.305, 331(4), 61(2), 249 of BNS, Pingwan Nuh 2023 (erstwhile S. 380, 457, 120-B & 212 of IPC) and S. 25(1B)(A) of Arms Act, 1959 2.
As per allegations, in the intervening night of 27/28.12.2025, theft was committed in the jewellery shop of complainant - Mohit Soni. The footage of CCTV cameras revealed that some unidentified persons entered the shop after breaking open the main gate/shutter, and thereafter, allegedly stole about 200 grams of gold and 30 kilogram of silver articles from the said jewellery shop.
After registration of FIR on 28.12.2025, some suspects were
- 2 - arrested, including father of the petitioner namely, Pooran Singh Chauhan, and thereafter, on 24.01.2026, petitioner was also arrested after involving him as accused on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by already arrested accused persons.
3.
As per allegations further developed by prosecution, it was the petitioner, who allegedly provided tools, which were used for breaking the shutter and main gate of the shop. The question, which appears to be adjudicated before the learned trial Court is that whether merely providing tools, without there being any specific allegation that such accused was part of conspiracy or had actively participated in commission of theft, would make him liable for punishment in the present case or not. The evidence with regard to alleged conspiracy or having prior knowledge about the purpose for which such tools were allegedly supplied to the main accused persons, would be required to be established by the prosecution on record during the course of trial. 4.
Petitioner is already inside the jail since 24.01.2026, and except disclosure statement as well as allegations regarding supplying of tools by the petitioner, no other substantial recovery could be effected from him during investigation, as has also been fairly conceded by learned State counsel.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, nature of allegations, period of incarceration already undergone, and the stage of trial, this Court deems it a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
- 3 - 5.
Accordingly, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
6.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
7.
Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
8.
Petition stands disposed of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE May 20, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No