Rohit Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.125 dated 28.12.2024, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS and Section 238 of BNS added later on at Police Station Division No.2, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 4 months. He alleges false implication in the case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner and the complainant are jewellers and they used to take jewelleries from each other for the purpose of trading. The offences are triable by Magistrate. Challan has been presented on 13.10.2025 and the charges are yet to be framed and in all there are 7 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in one more case, wherein he is on bail. R eliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 .

¶17

The custody certificate dated 23.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 4

¶18

DINESH 2025.12.24 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

� CRM-M-63180-2025 (O&M) 2

¶20

months.

¶21

4 . L earned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there is a criminal breach of trust and the incident has been covered by the CCTV footage. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, and the petitioner being on bail in other case.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

6 . Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, <As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.=

¶24

7 . C onsidering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 4 months; on bail in other case; it is a case of Magistrial trial; challan stands presented on 13.10.2025; charges are yet to be framed, in all there are 7 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

¶25

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶27

DINESH 2025.12.24 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

� CRM-M-63180-2025 (O&M) 3

¶29

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶31

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶32

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶33

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶34

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶35

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶36

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶37

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶38

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶39

24.12.2025		(AMAN	CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
dinesh	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes / No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes / No

¶40

DINESH 2025.12.24 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rohit Aggarwal v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Aggarwal v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Sandeep Chillar and Ors. Vs M/S Chequer Marketing Private Limited

Sandeep Chillar and Ors. Vs M/S Geefcee Finance Limited

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Santosh Kumar Bhagat Alias Sanju Vs State of Haryana

Ekamjot Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab