Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/34501/2026 of SUKHJEET SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 August 2026
2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2222 and he forcibly snatched both her gold ear rings and fled towards Maghar Sahib, Punjab. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely involved. Notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-34501 of 2026 (O&M)
and he forcibly snatched both her gold ear rings and fled towards Maghar Sahib, Punjab.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely involved. Notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued to him directing him to appear. The same day, petitioner was arrested from SD College, Ambala Cantt. There was nothing on record how and in what manner, petitioner was found involved. Investigation was complete and challan was presented. Therefore, petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail submitting that during investigation of the case Mohit Singh, Branch Head, Muthoot Finance Ambala City, presented a pair of gold earrings, documents related to gold loan taken on the gold ear rings and footage of the incident in a pen drive. Petitioner and co-accused were identified by the complainant during investigation. Petitioner deposited the earrings snatched from the complainant in Muthoot Finance Company, in order to obtain loan and there was sufficient evidence indicating his complicity, therefore, petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail.
5. Petitioner is in custody in the case for the last about 5 months. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Mulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2012) 2 SCC 382, involvement of petitioner in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny them the concession of bail. No useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars. Investigation of the REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-34501 of 2026 (O&M)
case is complete. Petitioner has a fixed abode and there is no reason to suspect that he would evade the process of law or flee from justice.
6. The often invoked phrase ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is not merely an empty statutory slogan flowing from the Cr.P.C. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocent which is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law. (Vide Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation agency 2026 SCC online SC 881).
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 27.08.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI