Allowed¶28

Chander Sagar Alias Gharonda v. State of Haryana

Bail – Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS – Second petition

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2025CRM-M/15132/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J) allows second regular-bail petition under S.483 BNSS of Chander Sagar @ Gharonda in dacoity-plan FIR No. 331/16.07.2024 (Ss.111(3), 310(4), 310(5) BNS; S.25 Arms Act), holding that involvement in other criminal cases is not a sole ground to deny bail and granting bail on parity with co-accused, custody since 16.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned; pending application(s), if any, rendered infructuous. ¶28

Chander Sagar Alias Gharonda Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No. 331 dated 16.07.2024 for offences under Sections 111(3), 310(4), 310(5) BNS and Section 25 Arms Act with other criminal cases pending against him, is entitled to regular bail on parity with co-accused already released.

¶21

Court's answer

Involvement of an accused in other cases cannot be considered to be a sole ground for denying benefit of bail to him.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Trial is likely to take time since most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined; considering the period of incarceration, nature of allegations and period of sentence the conviction may entail, bail was warranted without comment on merits.

¶28

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS — Second petition — FIR No. 331 dated 16.07.2024, PS City Fatehabad, under Sections 111(3), 310(4), 310(5) BNS and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 — Allegation that fifteen persons assembled at Char Marla Colony planning dacoity while armed; pistol .32 bore, live cartridges, 12 bore gun and cash of Rs. 2,80,000/- recovered; petitioner arrested 16.07.2024 and in custody since; investigation concluded — Most co-accused already granted bail; parity pleaded — State opposed citing habitual-offender antecedents including a case under Section 302 IPC — Held: involvement of an accused in other cases cannot be the sole ground for denying bail; trial likely to take time as most prosecution witnesses yet to be examined — Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to CJM/Duty Magistrate.

¶1

CRM-M-15132-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-15132-2025 Reserved on: 14^th May, 2025 Pronounced on: 19^th May, 2025

¶5

Chander Sagar @ Gharonda

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

¶15

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 331 dated 16.07.2024 registered under Sections 111(3), 310(4) and 310(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

¶16

As per the allegations, on 16.07.2024, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that fifteen persons were present in a particular house situated at Char Marla Colony and were making plans to commit offence of dacoity while being armed with weapons, a raiding party was formed by the concerned police officials. They reached at the spot and apprehended the persons, who were present there. The petitioner was one of

¶17

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.20 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-15132-2025

¶19

¶20

them. One pistol .32 bore, 10 live cartridges, magazines, 24 cartridges, 12 bore gun and one carry bag containing cash amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- were recovered from the spot. They were formally arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶21

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted against him. Most of the co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. He is in custody since 16.07.2024. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. He is on bail in other cases, which have been registered against him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. Therefore, it is argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶22

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, that the petitioner is a habitual offender and several criminal cases, including a murder case have been registered against him. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offence, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶23

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

¶24

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have made plan for committing offence of dacoity and is also alleged to be found in possession of firearms. Recovery of two illegal pistols and five live

¶25

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.20 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-15132-2025

¶27

¶28

cartridges is stated to be effected from him. He has been extended benefit of bail in the case registered under Section 302 of IPC against him and in some other cases. It is well settled proposition of law that involvement of an accused in other cases, cannot be considered to be a sole ground for denying benefit of bail to him. Trial is likely to take time, since most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner, the nature of allegations as levelled against him, the period of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶29