Rajbir Singh Alias Harman v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.69992 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.69992 of 2025 Date of decision : 14.1.2026 Date of uploading : 14.1.2026 Rajbir Singh @ Harman .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ankur Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Divij, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, 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.91 dated 3.4.2025 under Sections 127(2) and 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala.

2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'Statement of Shahnawaj S/o Ayub Rio Near Shekh Shahbuddin Masjid, Mohalla Patiyan, Ambelhata Dehat, Saharanpur, Ambehata, Uttar Pradesh, aged 24 years, Mobile No. 8630879804. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and drive my own truck. I had proceeded from Ambheta after loading scrap in my canter No. UK-17-CA-5453 and my friend Shamim S/o Zamil R/o Ambehata District, Saharanpur was also

CRM-M No.69992 of 2025 -2with me who had to go to Patilaya. Today on 03/04/2025 at around 2AM when we reached on national high way at Brahaman Maja curve a head of Mulana Markanda bridge, a Alto car of white colour came from behind and stopped in front of our truck and signaled to stop and therefore we stopped the vehicle. Out of the two boys in Alto car one of whom was a Sikh (Sardar) wearing turban came to me and told that we have secret information that there is opium etc, in your truck and hence we have to conduct search. I told them that there is nothing as such in my vehicle and on that they came inside the truck and told me to drive behind our Alto car. Thereafter they made us to stop the truck along side Raju Dhaba near Milan palace and told me to get down.

Thereafter they took me in their car and told that we will release you after verification. After making me to sit in the car, they forcibly snatched my purse from me which was also containing my purse as well. There were three boys including driver in the Alto. They took out Rs. 21,000/- from my purse From there they took me towards Dosdaka (two road meeting points) and from there bring back towards Raju Dhaba They made me to call my friend Shamim from my mobile No. 8630879804 and told that tell your friend to pay Rs. 500/-, we will leave you there. I called my friend Shamin at his mobile No 628060586 from my mobile No. 8630879804 and told that give them Rs. 500/- than they will leave me. Stopping the car little ahead of Milan Palace, out of them one boy went to my friend and brought Rs. 500/-.

Thereafter they took me towards Saha but ATM being closed, took me to Mahesh Nagar and reached ahead of KD Hospital. Kept me seated in the car, one boy stayed back with me and two boys out of them one was Sikh (Sardar), went inside the ATM installed there and without my around Rs. 31,000/- and therefore turn their car back towards Saha and at around 500 meters in the street, return my purse, ATM, Driving License and gave Rs. 500/- and fled away from there in their car I do not know the car number. It had yellow plate and I remember HR 8881 written on it. Putting me under fear to kill with an bolt used to bang on wheel, snatched around Rs. 51,500/- from me Legal action against three unknown boys be taken and my money be get recovered. Statement got recorded, read over, heard and find correct.

Sd/- Shahnawaj Attested Chhatar Pal ASI PS Mullana dated 03/04/2025.'

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

CRM-M No.69992 of 2025 -3is in custody since 9.5.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime private prosecution witnesses namely FIR-complainant (Shahnawaj) and eye-witness (Shameen) have turned hostile, and thus, the trial is not likely to culminate into conviction. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing 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 13.1.2026 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 in the present case on 9.5.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Upon culmination of investigation, challan was presented on 4.7.2025 wherein total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. Thus, culmination of trial will, but of course, take long. The rival contention raised at the Bar; including the weightage required to be attached to the testimonies of hostile witnesses give rise to debatable 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

CRM-M No.69992 of 2025 -4justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 13.1.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 8 months and 3 days in this case. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case/FIR registered under Section 406 IPC. 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 regular 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,

CRM-M No.69992 of 2025 -5in 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 Investigating 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 14.1.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No