CRM-M/34162/2026 of NILENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 7 July 2026

219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.34162 of 2026 Date of Decision:-07.07.2026

Nilender Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Jaswinder Singh Rana, Advocate for

Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is the third (wrongly mentioned as second in the head note) petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.101 dated 11.02.2025 registered under Sections 140(1), 309(4), 311 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNS’), at Police Station Sadar Gurugram, District Gurugram.

2. Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel in Court is taken on record.

3. On the complaint of one Jayant Rathi, the FIR in question was registered. As per the allegations, on 10.02.2025, at about 08.45 P.M, the YAG DUTT

CRM-M No.34162 of 2026 -2-

complainant was sitting in his vehicle in a parking near Rajiv Chowk at Gurugram. At about 11.00 P.M, while he was talking to his friend on a mobile phone, three persons came, one of whom was armed with a country- made pistol. He opened the door of the driver side and pointed the country- made pistol on his waist. The other two persons entered the car from the rear door. The complainant was injured by the butt of the pistol and was dragged outside whereafter, his gold chain, gold bracelet, Aadhar card, PAN card, driving licence, RC of the vehicle and purse were snatched. The complainant was thereafter abandoned at some place in Sector-38, Gurugram.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 1 year, having been arrested on 10.06.2025; the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that unidentified persons had committed the robbery; out of a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been examined, who is the complainant; trial will still take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that six other cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. No doubt, the allegations are serious. However, it has to be YAG DUTT

CRM-M No.34162 of 2026 -3-

borne in mind that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has failed to identify the accused. The petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2025 and is in custody since then. Out of a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been examined, i.e the complainant, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. Trial will still take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 07, 2026

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT