Narender Kumar Alias Babli v. State Of Haryana
- 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 Narinder Kumar @ Babli
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present :
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate Ms. Khushboo Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
*** N.S.Shekhawat J.
1.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No. 306, dated 29.08.2025, registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 238 of B.N.S, 2023 {corresponding Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC}, Police Station Model Town, Rewari (Annexure P-1). 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R was registered on the basis of a communication received by the police authorities from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari against the persons found involved in commission of offences in case bearing CIS No.246/2021 titled as "State Vs. Deepak". It was alleged that during the enquiry conducted by the police officials, it was found that a person namely Vikram @ Vicky stood surety, by impersonating Ajay Kumar and he had also submitted revenue
- 2records for the purpose of furnishing surety in compliance of the order passed by the Court. Upon conducting the personal search of Vikram @ Vicky, three forged Aadhar Cards were recovered from his possession and he was arrested. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was arrested in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by Vikram @ Vicky, co-accused. It was alleged that the petitioner was owner of an Atal Sewa Kendra and had no concern with the alleged crime. He further contends that during the course of investigation, the police also failed to establish any direct nexus or connection between the petitioner and his co-accused.
Even, the police had neither recovered any printer/cable/wi-fi device nor any other electric equipment from the possession or premises of the petitioner, to establish that the forged Aadhar Cards were allegedly prepared or printed by the petitioner through his Atal Sewa Kendra. He further contends that the police had presented the challan against the petitioner and other accused and now the charge has been framed against him. Out of total nine prosecution witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Further, the petitioner was taken in custody on 03.09.2025 and is in custody for the last more than eight months. Further, the petitioner was never involved in any other crime and is a first offender. Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 3.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
- 3record carefully.
5.
It is not in dispute that all the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and till date, the prosecution has been able to examine only four witnesses out of total nine witnesses. Even, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than eight months and there is no material to show that the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or there are chances of fleeing from the process of justice. 6.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 26.05.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No