CRM-M/26493/2026 of AAKASH @ RAJA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 July 2026

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.219 dated 13.11.2024 under Sections 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 29 of Arms Act, 1959 (added later on), registered at Police Station Sector 17, Faridabad.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘To, Mr. Incharge Sahib, Police Chowki, Sector 16, Faridabad, Sir, I request that I am Sonu son of Ranjeet Singh Yadav, resident of House No. 136, Street No. 5, Saraswati Basti Part 2, Sector 91, Faridabad and I have bought a Swift Dzire car number HR 38 AA 3057 and have put it in Ola company. I mostly keep my car near Old Railway Station, Delhi. On the night of 12/13-11-2024, my car was parked at Old Railway Station, Delhi.

When I logged into my phone at around 12.05 AM, I got a booking from Ola for Faridabad, so I booked the car and from Old Railway Station, Delhi, I took five people and left for Sector 16A, Faridabad. When I reached the location near Sector 16A Sai Mandir, a police rider was already standing there. When I asked them (the passengers) to get off the car there, they said to drop them a little further so that the can go a little further I stopped the car after reaching in front of Grand Columbus School, Sector 16A, Faridabad and asked them to get down. They gave me Rs. 760/- as fare. As soon as I took the money and put it in my pocket one of them put a gun on my stomach and robbed my pocke's approximately Rs. 15000, mobile phone and Om Pendant. At that very moment the car horn blew and as soon as the horn blew, those people got down from the car and ran away on foot taking with them the robbed money, phone and Om Pendant. Legal action should be taken against those people and my robbed money, mobile phone and Om Pendant should be recovered.’

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the main prosecution witness, i.e. complainant (Sonu) has already been examined as a prosecution witness. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused namely; Shivam @ Lali, Neeraj Mandal @ Keeda, Sonu @ Sanu, Amit @ Angrej have been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court. 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 20.7.2026 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 on 26.11.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 7.2.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 3 have been examined till date. It is not in dispute before this Court that prime prosecution witness, i.e. the complainant-Sonu stands examined. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall 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 justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 20.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 7 months and 25 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 7 more FIRs. 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, in 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 21.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No