Dismissed¶19

Bal Bahadur Sharki v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2025CRM-M/1582/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M No.1582 of 2025 (decided 27.05.2025, Manisha Batra, J.): regular bail application under S.483 BNSS dismissed in a dacoity/home-intrusion case, FIR No.433 dated 28.07.2024, PS Suraj Kund, Faridabad (Sections 309(4), 351(2), 310(2), 123 BNS 2023; Sections 25 and 25(1A) Arms Act). Denial grounds: grave allegations, victim not yet examined, absconding apprehension not unfounded, no parity with the co-accused granted bail (arms supplier), no showing of undue trial delay. Keywords: bail dismissed, BNSS Section 483, BNS 2023, dacoity, parity, Arms Act, Faridabad.

What did the court decide?

The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave in nature. ¶19

Bal Bahadur Sharki Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

232 CRM-M No.1582 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.05.2025

¶3

BAL BAHADUR SHARKI …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

STATE OF HARYANA … . Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶7

Present : M r . Yogender Nain, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

¶8

M r . Neeraj Poswal, A.A.G., Hary a na.

¶9

¶10

MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral)

¶11

T h e present petition has been file d under Section 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Surak s ha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘B N SS’) by the petitioner for gran t of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 4 33 dated 28.07.2024 registere d under 309(4), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya N y aya Sanhita, 2023 (for short - ‘BNS’) and S e ction 25 of Arms Act (Sectio n s 310(2) and 123 of BNS an d Section 25 (1 A ) of Arms Act added and Secti o n 3(5) of BNS deleted later on) , at Police Statio n Suraj Kund, District Faridaba d . 2. T h e aforementioned FIR was r egistered on the basis of a complaint lod g ed by the complainant-Ritu K hanna alleging therein that o n 25.07.2024, o n e girl namely, Karishma hired by her as a domestic help ha d come to her ho u se. On 27.07.2024, at about 11 : 20 PM, the complainant notice d Karishma whil e talking to someone on phone. The complainant was alone a t her house at t h at time. Karishma called two y ouths inside her house. One o f them pointed a pistol towards the complainan t after entering in her room an d extended threa t to kill her if she did not keep q u iet. Thereafter both youths too k

¶12

Jyoti 2025.05.28 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CRM-M No.1582 of 2025 - 2-

¶14

out gold and diamond jewellery, cash am o unt of `75,000/- kept in th e cupboard and a lso took debit and credit card, P AN card, Aadhar Card etc. kep t in the house a n d thereafter they along with Ka r ishma scaled the balcony of th e house and fle d after looting the valuables kept in the house. Investigatio n proceedings w ere initiated. On 29.07.202 4 , on the basis of a secre t information, t h e present petitioner along with co-accused Padma @ Aarti @ Karishma, Pal l ab Raj Bhatia and Shankar B h ool were arrested. They wer e interrogated a n d suffered disclosure statemen t and in pursuance thereof, go t recovered the looted jewellery. They also demarcated the place of occurrence . One country m ade pistol was also recovered at their instances. The accuse d Padma @ Aar t i @ Karishma got recovered s o me poisonous powder from th e kitchen of the house of the complainant. Investigation now stands complete d and the petitioner along with co-accused are facing trial for commission o f aforementione d offences.

¶15

It is argued by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implica t ed in this case. He was not na m ed in the FIR, no specific rol e has been attrib u ted to him. He is in custody s i nce long. His test identificatio n parade was no t got conducted. A false recov e ry has been planted upon him . Trial is likely t o take time. His further incarcer a tion would not serve any usefu l purpose. He h as clean antecedents. Co-ac c used Sher Bahadur has bee n extended bene f it of bail. On parity, he too, deserves to be given the sam e benefit. As suc h , it is urged that the petition de s erves to be allowed. 4. St a tus report has been filed. Lear n ed State counsel has argued tha t the petitioner h ad actively participated in the crime. The allegations agains t him are quite g rave in nature. The offence u n der Section 310(2) of BNS i s

¶16

Jyoti 2025.05.28 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M No.1582 of 2025 - 3-

¶18

punishable up t o life imprisonment. The petiti o ner hails from Nepal and ther e are chances of h is absconding or intimidating t he witnesses if extended benefi t of bail. Accor d ingly, it is urged that he do e s not deserve to the extende d benefit of bail.

¶19

Rival submissions have been hear d . 6. T h e petitioner conjointly with th e co-accused is alleged to hav e committed th e offences of dacoity by en t ering into the house of th e complainant, e x tending threats to her and then b y carrying away valuables gol d and diamond j e wellery, cash amount, debit an d credit card etc. from her house . The allegation s against the petitioner are quit e grave in nature. The victim i s yet to be exa m ined. The apprehension expres s ed by the respondent-State tha t he may absco n d, cannot be stated to be unf o unded. The case of co-accuse d who has been e xtended benefit of bail cannot b e stated to be at parity with th e case of the pet i tioner since the allegations against that co-accused were that h e had supplied s o me arms to the dacoits. There i s nothing on record to show tha t there would b e any undue delay in conclusio n of trial. In view of the abov e discussed fact s but without expressing any m erits or demerits on the riva l submissions, t h is Court is of the opinion t h at no case for release of th e petitioner on b a il is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶20

		(M ANISHA BATRA)
27.05.2025		JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes /No.
	Whether reportable :	Yes /No

¶21

Jyoti 2025.05.28 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bal Bahadur Sharki v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Bahadur Sharki v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Kumar Joshi Vs Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

Bittu Kumar Alias Bittu Vs State of Haryana

Gulam Mustafa Daar Vs State of Haryana

Rahul Alias Rahul Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Harjeet Singh Alias Enki Vs State of Punjab

Alok Vs State of Haryana