Dismissed¶¶18

Pallab Raj Bhatta v. State of Haryana

Regular bail – S.483 BNSS

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2025CRM-M/4944/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; CRM-M No.4944 of 2025; Pallab Raj Bhatia v. State of Haryana; Manisha Batra, J.; regular bail under Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.433 dated 28.07.2024, P.S. Suraj Kund, Faridabad; Sections 309(4), 351(2), 310(2), 123 BNS 2023; Sections 25 and 25(1A) Arms Act; Section 3(5) BNS deleted; dacoity allegations; gold/diamond jewellery and Rs.75,000/- cash looted; parity plea vis-a-vis co-accused Sher Bahadur rejected; apprehension of absconding (petitioner from Nepal); victim not examined; bail petition dismissed on 09.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave in nature, and the victim is yet to be examined, which weighs against his release on bail. ¶¶18

Pallab Raj Bhatta Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Pallab Raj Bhatia), arraigned in FIR No. 433 dated 28.07.2024, Police Station Suraj Kund, District Faridabad, under Sections 309(4), 351(2), 310(2) and 123 of BNS 2023 and Sections 25 / 25(1A) of the Arms Act, deserves grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶¶10

Court's answer

The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave in nature, and the victim is yet to be examined, which weighs against his release on bail.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The apprehension expressed by the respondent-State that the petitioner may abscond cannot be stated to be unfounded (State had argued the petitioner hails from Nepal and may abscond or intimidate witnesses).

¶¶18

Key takeaways

No parity with the released co-accused: the co-accused who was granted bail was alleged only to have supplied arms to the dacoits, so his case cannot be stated to be at parity with that of the petitioner.ratio¶¶18
There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial.ratio¶¶18
In view of the above-discussed facts, without expressing any merits or demerits on the rival submissions, this Court found that no case for release of the petitioner on bail was made out and dismissed the petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail – S.483 BNSS – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 433 dated 28.07.2024, P.S. Suraj Kund, District Faridabad, initially under Sections 309(4), 351(2), 3(5) BNS 2023 and Section 25 Arms Act, with Sections 310(2) and 123 BNS and Section 25(1A) Arms Act added and Section 3(5) BNS deleted later. Allegations: dacoity at the house of complainant Ritu Khanna on 27.07.2024 night; gold and diamond jewellery and cash of Rs. 75,000/- looted; petitioner arrested on 29.07.2024 with co-accused Padma @ Aarti @ Karishma, Bal Bahadur Sharki and Shankar Bhool; looted jewellery recovered, a country-made pistol recovered at their instance and poisonous powder got recovered by co-accused; investigation complete, accused facing trial, victim yet to be examined. Held: allegations against petitioner grave; apprehension of absconding expressed by the respondent-State (which noted petitioner hails from Nepal) not unfounded; no parity with co-accused Sher Bahadur, already released on bail, whose alleged role was confined to supplying arms to the dacoits; nothing on record to show undue delay in conclusion of trial. Without expressing any merits or demerits on the rival submissions, no case for release on bail made out; petition dismissed. (Manisha Batra, J.; reserved 08.05.2025, pronounced 09.05.2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M No.4944 of 2025 Reserved on :08.05.2025 Pronounced on : 09.05.2025

¶3

PALLAB RAJ BHATIA …. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

…. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶8

Present : M r . Kartik Khicher, Advocate for t he petitioner. M s . Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryan a . ********

¶9

MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral)

¶10

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 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

¶11

Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

CRM-M No.4944 of 2025 - 2-

¶13

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, Bal Bahadur Sharki and Shankar B hool 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 power 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.

¶14

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 attri b uted to him and even as per t h e allegations, he was standin g outside the ho u se of the complainant while t h e co-accused were stealing th e valuables therefrom. He is in custody since lo n g. His test identification parad e was not got c o nducted. A false recovery has b een planted upon him. Trial i s likely to take time. His further incarceratio n 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

¶15

Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M No.4944 of 2025 - 3-

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

(MANISHA BATRA) 09.05.2025 JUDGE Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Ye s /No. Whether reportable : Ye s /No

¶20

Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pallab Raj Bhatta v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallab Raj Bhatta 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

Heera Lal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Priyanka Jain and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Deepak Alias Deep Vs State of Haryana

Lovepreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amrinder Singh Alias Raja Vs State of Punjab