Amanat v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61009-2025 DECIDED ON: 04.02.2026 AMANAT .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.332, dated 18.09.2019, under Sections 34, 392, 411, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 56, District Gurugram.

2.

For the alleged incident which took place on 17.09.2019 at around 9:30 P.M., petitioner in the present case was arrested on 21.02.2025, along with the co-accused, namely Sajid. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coaccused Sajid has already been granted the concession of bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-3).

4.

It is noticed that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) has also been conducted. Although, the same was conducted after the submission LAVISHA 2026.02.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-61009-2025 -2of challan, the said aspect has been brought on record through a supplementary challan and is required to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence yet to be led before the trial Court. 5.

It is also noticed that prayer for bail made by the petitioner has been declined by the Court below, vide order dated 25.09.2025, observing that petitioner is a habitual offender, having been found involved in several criminal cases, including three cases resulting in conviction.

6.

In view of the fact that petitioner has been arrested in the recent past and the evidence with regard to identification of the accused is yet to be recorded, this Court finds that it is not an appropriate stage to consider the plea of regular bail made through the present petition. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed at this stage. 7.

However, it shall be open to the petitioner to move a fresh application for bail after examination of the complainant, who was driving the Ola company vehicle in the present case. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 04.02.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.02.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh