Ravi v. State Of Haryana




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(141) CRM-M-63977-2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 RAVI ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Ankit Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 400 dated 16.08.2024 under Sections 115, 126, 3(5), 324(4), 351(2), 76 of BNS, registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. 2.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "TO SHO PS Adarsh, Kurukshetra. The Application for getting justice and taking legal action against: Ravi son of Roshan, resident of village BohlaKhalsa, district Karnal and his three other friends, who were travelling with Ravi in the Alto car. Sir, the applicant prays as follows:-That the applicant xxxx, daughter of Salender, is a resident of house number 320, Sector 9, Lotus Green City, Kurukshetra and is divorced and has children.

The applicant works at a beauty Parlour shop in Kaithal and goes to Kaithal bybus every day/That Ravi had started living in a relationship with the applicant, who had fled abroad after stealing cash, gold and silver jewellery and other items from the applicant's house about one and a half years ago, against whom the applicant has lodged a case of theft at Police Post Sector 7, Kurukshetra and the above mentioned culprit has been calling the applicant for the last 3-4 months and threatening her to withdraw the case, otherwise he will kill her when he gets a chance. On 15-08-2024 at around 7:30 pm, the applicant was travelling to Kurukshetra by a Haryana Roadways bus. Accused Ravi and his three other companions followed the bus in an Alto car.

When the bus was coming from kamoda bus stand towards Kurukshetra, the accused stopped the bus by parking their Alto car in front of the bus. They slapped and punched the applicant. They snatched the applicant's phone and broke it. Ravi forcibly took away Rs. 7,000/- from behind the phone cover, a gold locket, and a two-tola gold chain and gave them to his friends.

 tore the applicant's clothes, and tried to get the applicant off the bus. The passengers of the bus rescued the applicant with great difficulty and caught Ravi and handed him over to the Third Gate Police Station. The applicant had the injuries inflicted by the accused medically examined at the Government Hospital, Kurukshetra. That the applicant reported the incident to 112 using someone else's phone and told the police about her ordeal."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 25 year old petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the complainant/victim. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., materially improved and changed the version narrated by her in the FIR. Similarly, the testimony of the prosecutrix also suffers from material infirmities. It is also submitted that a similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail. The material witnesses have already been examined before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct evidence on record to corroborate & conclusively establish the allegations leveled against the petitioner, who has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year 06 months and 19 days. He has clean antecedents. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year 06 months and 19 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 29.03.2025 and out of total 09 prosecution witnesses, 05 have been examined till date. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

 5.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6.



   





 



"#

$



 

 





 

%

 &




 

  

    

               

     

  

   

   

        

         

     

 

  

 

  

    

         

     

   





  





                 

    

     

      

  



  

 

 ! 

   

   

   

 



 

   

 !                

 

 

  

  

 

             

      

  
  
   

   



      

   "      



      



  

   

  



 



  

 

       

  #   

  
'









 

 

 '

'

( 

)

  * 

 





+





  



 '

!

 

 !

 01 year 06 months and 19 days'

-

 

 

   



 

!



.'

/

 

 %



 

 

  !  ! %



   

 





 

 





 



  



 



  



 

0

 

  



1  '

2

 !   

  







   

% 

 

  % 

 



+  0  

 



 %

+

  



 !

 1





  



0











   !

  %  



1 





!

 3

  - %  



!



 

 

  

  '

   %



 

   %

 !











 1

+ 6



"6

$

 



! "

 

 
#  

 3 !





%  

 





1 



7

  



 



   7

  !



$

 





89!

 





% 

  & )*

%

 %

 )*

%



:

8



) *'

)*

%

 

 +  





+  ) *

  

  

%



 

 %

 ) *

    0

!



   

!

7 % 





    

 

!

 

  %

44'

-

 !







!

   







'

4 '

-



 







1







  

 



+

 



4'

 

 

 ) *  !



 

'

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 06, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No