Fayyaz Ahmad v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 FAYYAZ AHMAD ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. S.S.Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 140 dated 01.05.2025 under Sections 305, 331(3) and later on added Sections 317(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that three co-accused persons namely Gullu, Roshan Jahan and Naseema entered the complainant's jewellery shop and committed the theft of a gold chain. The role of the present petitioner is that he along with other co-accused by hatching a criminal conspiracy to steal the same and in a car he was waiting for his co-accused at some distance from the shop.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the

-2co-accused. The gold chain was recovered from inside the car used by the petitioner and other co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner was not the owner of the car from which alleged gold chain has been recovered. The petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2025.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 02 months and 04 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The challan has been filed. He fairly admits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2025 and he is not involved in any other case. 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for 02 months and 04 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the

-3satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 09.07.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No