Sombir Vs State of Haryana

Th i s is the first petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of r egular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.49 dated 1 6 .02.2024 under Sections 392/395/397/42 7 /506 of IPC, 1860 and Secti o n 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Po l ice Station Israna, District Pani p at (Annexure P-1). 2. Br i ef facts of the case are that on 15.02.2024, complainant Ravinder Kum a r son of Randhir Singh came i n the Police Station, Israna and moved a comp l aint stating therein on 15.02.2 0 24 at about 03.30 P.M., one ALTO Car bea r ing registration No.HR-11D-2 5 04 came from Samalkha side for taking petr o l in which three boys were si t ting. They stated to salesman Ankush son of S urender, resident of village M a ndi to fill the tank of car. The salesman filled t he petrol of Rs.2,399/- and afte r that salesman gave the key of ALTO Car to d r iver and asked for money. They shown the pistol and put the salesman Anku s h towards car and after that th e y took Ankush towards Israna

¶14

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-14529-2025

¶16

2

¶17

side. Another s a lesman namely Shivam son o f Vikram followed the vehicle and succeed to put out the key of vehicle. In a pre-planned manner, vehicle bearing No.H R -26CG-9804 black colour E l entra Hyundai was already standing and o n mirror of car written Haryana i n English letters. Out of them, two boys came out along with weapon. All of them, on the point of weapon looted an amo u nt of Rs.11,000/- from sales m an Ankush. In the meantime, Shivam take op p ortunity and ran away from the spot after taking key of ALTO towards Gawalra side and Ankush also ran awa y from the spot in order to save his life. Therea f ter, said three boys came on fo o t at petrol pump for taking key and on their ba c k two boys came on vehicle b e aring No.HR-26CG-9804. All the five persons openly showed the pistol on ai r and they broken the mirror of Mahendra Pick - Up and Activa which were sta n ding on petrol pump. All five boys threatene d to kill them and ran away fr o m the spot alongwith vehicle Alentara. ALT O vehicle was standing on th e petrol pump. Salesman told about the same t o the complainant.

¶18

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r , inter alia , contends that the petitioner was n ot present along with other assailants at the time of incident as he was in anot h er vehicle, waiting outside the patrol pump. She submits that similarly situat e d, six co-accused have alread y been granted concession of regular bail by t his Court. She further submits t hat the petitioner is behind the bars since 19.0 4 .2024.

¶19

Le a rned State counsel produces t he custody certificate of the petitioner, whic h is take on record and per co n tra, opposes the prayer of the petitioner on t h e ground that the petitioner h a s played an active role in the alleged inciden t and one country-made pistol w as recovered pursuant to his

¶20

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-14529-2025 3

¶22

disclosure stat e ment. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender as he involved in five more cases.

¶23

A t wo Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with r espect to prevailing conditions of undertrial pri s oner in India has observed:

¶24

“ 6. Jails in India are floode d with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us w ould indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of th e prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category o f prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arr e sted despite registration of a cognizable offence, being ch a rged with offences punishable for seven years or less. T hey are not only poor and illiterate but also would in c lude women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it c e rtainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, o n the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding th e fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtail m ent of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo c racy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

¶25

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of t h e case, it transpires that the pe t itioner is behind the bar since 19.04.2024. In v estigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was pr e sented before the concerned C o urt. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress a s out of 31 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far . The culpability, if any, would be determined a t the time of trial. No useful pu r pose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping th e petitioner in further detention

¶26

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-14529-2025

¶28

4

¶29

without the pro s pect of the trial being conclud e d in the near future, would be violative of his r ights under Article 21 of the C o nstitution of India. 7. Ke e ping in view the law laid d o wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i n “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another”, 2012 (2) SCC 382 , the involve m ent of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of c o ncession of regular bail. 8. In view of the above, the pres e nt petition is allowed. Thus, without comm e nting upon the merits of the c ase, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the t rial, the petitioner-Sombir is or d ered to be released on regular bail during the p endency of the trial on furnis h ing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction o f Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 9. No t hing observed hereinabove sha l l be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case an d the trial Court shall proceed without being p r ejudiced by observations of thi s Court.

¶30

March 21, manisha	2025		(H ARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
	(i)	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	(ii)	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶31

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sombir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sombir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kikkar Singh Vs State of Pb.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Pb.

Jagbir @ Jaggu Vs St. of Hy.

Kirpal Chand Alias Nikka Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Alias Shama Vs State of Punjab