Ramesh @ Robin v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.35000 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.35000 of 2025 Date of decision : 11.7.2025 Ramesh @ Robin .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.66 dated 14.5.2025, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), 3(5), 110, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station BPTP, District Faridabad. 2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'To SHO Sahib, Police Station BPTP Faridabad, Shriman ji, I request that I am Deepak son of Mukesh Kumar, resident of village Badraula, district Faridabad. I work as an order delivery person in BLINKIT company. On 12.05.2025, I went to S-A Block, Sector 75 to deliver an order. There, I got down from my motorcycle and was looking at the address on my phone. At the same time, three boys on a motorcycle had covered their faces with a cloth, two of whom were holding sticks in their hands. As soon as I reached there, those two boys started beating me mercilessly. When I

CRM-M No.35000 of 2025 -2started screaming, they threatened to kill me and ran away from the spot. I have sustained severe injuries. Today, I am presenting my application and the documents of my medical treatment to you. Please take legal action against these three boys whose names and addresses are unknown. Applicant Deepak 9773640508 Action Police Date 13.05.25, ASI was present at the police station. I received a rukka from Poswal Hospital, Sector 75, Faridabad. After receiving the rukka, I ASI reached Poswal Hospital and obtained MLR No. - M106004172500008, which was presented to the doctor for taking the statement of the injured person. The doctor told about discharging the injured person. Injured Deepak was contacted over phone, who said that he would come to the police station tomorrow on 14.05.2025 and submit the application.

Today, complainant above mentioned person came to the police station and presented a written application and treatment documents to the ASI, which was found to be true under sections 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 3(5) BNS. Therefore, the complaint has been handed over to MHC for regularization of the case. SD-ASI JOGINDER SINGH Police Station BPTP Faridabad DATED 14.05.2025 The case has been registered in the presence of ASI Rammehar 2795.'

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 19.5.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced later on, on account of an application given by the complainant on 14.5.2025, whereas the incident is alleged to have been taken place on 12.5.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in the question on account of his acquaintance with one Krishna who had a dispute with the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that a similarly placed co-accused namely, Vinod has been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of Sessions. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

CRM-M No.35000 of 2025 -3arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 11.7.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 19.5.2025. The matter is still under investigation and, indubitably, the completion of investigation as also the trial emanating therefrom (if the cause so arises) shall take its own time. The rival contentions raised at the Bar give rise to the contentious issues which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1.

As per custody certificate dated 11.07.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of one month and twenty four days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in twelve other cases. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of

CRM-M No.35000 of 2025 -4regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the

CRM-M No.35000 of 2025 -5Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 11.7.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No