Raj Roshan @ Krishana v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : CRM-M-26915-2025 Date of Decision : August 19, 2025 Raj Roshan @ Krishana ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Garg, DAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.380 dated 29.12.2024, under Sections 305, 324(2), 331(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Section 61(2) BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was registered on a complaint made by Bank Manager of Central Bank of India namely Seeta Ram, stating that on 29.12.2024 (Sunday) at about 09:42 AM, Sanjeet Kumar, who runs a toy shop in front of the bank, informed him telephonically that a window of the bank premises was broken. He reached at the spot and the matter was brought into the notice of higher authorities. Thereafter, bank premises was opened and it was found that apart from the
said window, strong room was also targeted but it could not be opened as its lock got damaged. At that time, it could not be confirmed whether any cash was stolen or not because of non-opening of strong room till then. However, there was theft of three laser printers, four batteries and one DVR and damage to one kiosk passbook printer was also reported. On the basis of this information, the FIR in hand was registered. During investigation, CCTV footage, finger prints and tower location record were taken. The petitioner along with co-accused were also arrested. One Scorpio Car bearing registration no. UP-86-AN-9472, which was used in the incident, was also recovered from co-accused Jitender @ Monu.
Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence as he was 17 years and 08 months of age at that time and therefore, he should have been treated as a juvenile. Even as per the tower location record, the petitioner was not present at the spot. Co-accused Sunny Kumar @ Sunny, who has actively participated in the crime allegedly committed in this case, has already been granted regular bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on 07.03.2025 and other co-accused Yusuf has also been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court. The petitioner was arrested on 06.01.2025. Learned counsel further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars any more. It has been prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, strongly opposed the present bail petition while contending that the petitioner also actively participated in the crime along with other co-accused. Even he confessed about his participation in the crime along with his other accomplices, during his disclosure statement. The present case pertains to theft in the bank. So, keeping in view gravity of offence and seriousness of allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of regular bail. He prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
The petitioner has not been named in the FIR and his name surfaced in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused. Recovery in the present case has already been effected. As per the Custody Certificate placed on record, the petitioner is behind bars since 09.01.2025. Co-accused Sunny Kumar @ Sunny and Yusuf have already been released on bail. Conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations
recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 19, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.