Dudhiya v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-4621-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4621-2025 Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.09.2025 Pardeep @ Dudhiya ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Pardeep Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 479 28.12.2020 Sadar Jind, District Jind 395 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act (Sections 397 & 120-B IPC added later on) 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. 3. As per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2. That, the brief facts of the case are that on 28.12.2020, ASI Vinod Kumar along with Ct. Sunil and SPO Satish was present in Civil Hospital, Jind when MHC gave an information regarding a robbery being committed by 4-5 boys in Central Bank of India, Village Barsola. On receipt of this information, they reached there. Statement of Bank Manager Abhijit son of Shri Surja Ram, resident of H.No.2037 Sector 16/17, Hisar was recorded wherein he stated that today i.e. on 28.12.2020, at about 12.05 PM, he was working on his computer. Head Cashier Kapil Dev was on the cash counter. At that time, four boys, out of which two were armed with weapons entered the bank and one boy stood guard at the gate. All the boys started abusing them. Two of them fired. They took Rs.45,600/- cash and the bag of Head Cashier containing one mobile with Sim No.98967xxxx, ID Card, key of shutter of the bank, Cheque book, RC of motorcycle No.HR-31P-5324 and Driving Licence. Thereafter, all the five accused ran away on two motorcycles. He further requested for taking legal action against the accused persons was made. On the basis of above statement, present case bearing FIR No.479 dated 28.12.2020, under Sections 395 of IPC and 25 Arms Act was registered at 1 JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-4621-2025 Police Station Jind, District Jind (Annexure P-1).” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 6. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which reads as follows: “12. That as far as role of the petitioner is concerned, on 16.08.2024, the petitioner-accused namely Pardeep @ Dhudia son of Suresh@ Hira Lal, resident of Chitana, Sonepat was joined in the investigation of the case and on the basis of sufficient incriminatory evidence, the petitioner was arrested in this case. During interrogation on 17.08.2024, the petitioner suffered disclosure statement confessing his guilt in entirety and also disclosed that the motorcycle used in commission of offence was left in the mid way broke down and out of the looted amount, rupees 4,000/- which were given to him by accused Vishal, he had spent the same on his personal expenses. In pursuance of disclosure statement the petitioner- accused got demarcated the place of occurrence. A copy of the disclosure statement dated 17.08.2024 of the petitioner-accused is being annexed as Annexure R-3.” REASONING: 8. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As per paragraph 3(ii) of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2024. As per the custody certificate dated 31.08.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 01 year and 14 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, petitioner is first offender, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 9. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-4621-2025 10. Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000. 11. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the “Chief Judicial Magistrate” of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13.
Legal Reasoning
This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, complainant and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-4621-2025 within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 16. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 17. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 18. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 19. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 21. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-4621-2025 appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.” 22. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 09.09.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5