Pankaj v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 Pankaj .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Naresh K. Chhokar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present fifth petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.610, dated 15.10.2022, under Sections 365 IPC, 1860 (Sections 120-B, 302, 379-B, 365, 392, 397, 201 IPC & Sections 25/27 of Arms Act added later on), registered at Police Station Tehsil Camp, Panipat, District Panipat, Haryana.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Rajender Singh, son of Dayal Chand. It was alleged that the complainant purchased a Brezza car bearing registration No. HR-06BA-5560. It was alleged that son of complainant, namely, Mohit Soni (deceased) used to drive the same. On 14.10.2022, at about 07:30 P.M., his son, namely, Mohit Soni

-2after getting a booking through phone call, left for Raslapur. On reaching there, his son informed the complainant that a passenger had transferred an amount of Rs.290/- online in his account and had booked his car and he was taking them to District Jhajjar. It was alleged that after reaching Bohalgarh, location of his son was not traceable. It was alleged that he found that someone after booking the vehicle had kidnapped his son along with the vehicle. Thus the request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2022.

On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 27.04.2023. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court four times praying for the grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M24720-2023, CRM-M-1215-2024, CRM-M-2817-2025 and CRM-M1588-2025, however the same were dismissed vide orders dated 25.07.2023, 15.02.2024, 20.02.2025 and 28.04.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court fifth time by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been implicated in this case in a false and frivolous manner. He has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is

-3to the effect that he has only provided the sim card to the co-accused in a bona fide manner as he was running the mobile shop. He has submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge how the sim he has sold would be used. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 28.10.2022 and thus, has suffered incarceration for more than 03 years. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioner has prima facie established during the investigation. He has submitted that the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused has committed the murder of the son of complainant. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, 25 witnesses have been examined. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court which is taken on record. 6.

Heard.

7.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 28.10.2022 and since then, he is behind bars. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has only provided the sim card to the co-accused which was being used by him. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 03 years, 01 month and 11 days as on 09.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, 25 witnesses have been examined so far.

-48.

The veracity of the allegations and counter allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. 9.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 10.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 10.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No