← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23708/2026disposed of

Gurmeet v. State Of Haryana

2026-05-22Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.240 Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 GURMEET

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate and Mr. Surender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Viney Saini, AAG, Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

"This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail during the pendency of trial to the petitioner/accused in a case arising out of FIR No. 265 dated 17.08.2025, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Gurugram, District Gurugram, Haryana, initially under Sections 127(2), 310(2), 311, and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. The challan has since been presented under Sections 127(2), 310(2), 311, 317(3), 324(4), 238(2), 61(2), 115(2), and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and charges have been framed against the petitioner and co-accused under Sections 310(2), 311, 127(2), 324(4), 317(3), 238(2), 61(2), 115(2), and 333

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959."

2.

As per the prosecution story, on 16.08.2025, an offence of dacoity was committed in the premises of Manappuram Finance Limited, Gurugram, wherein cash amounting to Rs.8,56,000/- and approximately 8.5 kilograms of gold was allegedly looted. The role attributed to the present petitioner is that after commission of the offence, he met the main accused persons at a hotel situated in Jind, where accused Vijay allegedly handed over a bag containing the clothes worn during the occurrence and empty packets of the looted jewellery articles to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner thereafter purchased petrol from a petrol pump and destroyed the said articles in order to cause disappearance of evidence. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and his alleged role is confined only to the offence punishable under Section 238(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Section 201 IPC) relating to disappearance of evidence. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of commission of dacoity and came into the picture only after the alleged occurrence had already taken place. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months and 26 days and the trial is likely to take considerable time as the prosecution evidence is yet to commence.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioner was actively involved in helping the main accused persons in destroying the incriminating material

connected with the offence and thereby facilitated the accused persons in screening themselves from legal punishment. It is submitted that the offence is serious in nature involving huge amount of cash and gold and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, the petitioner is not alleged to have participated in the actual commission of dacoity and the role attributed to him is primarily with regard to destruction of certain articles allegedly used during the occurrence. The petitioner has remained in custody for the last 8 months and 26 days. The case is still at the initial stage and prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period. 6.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 22.05.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No