Allowed

Shiven v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2026CRM-M/12783/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by an accused in a robbery FIR who was identified via CCTV footage and test identification parade but had remained in custody since September 2025 with 22 prosecution witnesses pending. The complainant had compromised. The court granted bail, holding pre-trial incarceration cannot be punitive.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate, subject to stated conditions including no evidence tampering, no

Shiven Vs State of Haryana — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-12783-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-12783-2026 (O&M)

SHIVEN

. .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

1	The da te when thejudgment is reserve d	12.05.2026
2	The da te when the judgment is pronou nced	13.05.2026
3	The da websit te when the judgment is upload e ed on the	13.05.2026
4	Wheth pronou pronou er only operative part of the jud nced or whether the full judgme nced gment is nt is	Full
5	The de judgm lay, if any, of the pronounceme ent and reasons thereof. nt of full	Not applicable

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the p e titioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Additional Adv o cate General, Haryana Mr. Raghav Kaura, Advocate for th e complainant

¶12

¶13

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶14

Th e instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectio n 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 2 3 (for short “BNSS”) for gran t of regular bail i n case arising out of FIR No. 6 25 dated 16.09.2025 registere d under Sections 1 15, 126, 3(5), 351(3) of Bhar a tiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (fo r short “BNS”) (Sections 311, 190 and 191(3) of B NS added later on and Sectio n 3(5) of BNS deleted later on) at Police St a tion Sadar Gurugram, Distric t Gurugram.

¶15

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶16

CRM-M-12783-2026 (O&M) 2

¶17

Th e aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that o n the night of 14.0 2 .2025, 4-5 youths followed the car of the complainant Pardeep , by riding a Swift Maruti car. They stopped h is vehicle and signaled him t o come outside h i s vehicle and extended beati n gs to him. They robbed th e complainant of h is gold neck chain, Rs.50,000/- and cellphone. They fled fro m the spot after hit t ing the victim on his head with an iron rod.

¶18

Aft e r registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated . The CCTV foot a ge of the place of the incident w as obtained which showed th e presence of the accused Monu and the present petitioner and they were activ e participant in t he occurrence. They were joined into investigation o n 24.09.2025. T hey were interrogated and s uffered disclosure statement s admitting their i n volvement in the crime. The petitioner got recovered a Balen o vehicle was use d in the commission of the subject crime. The name of one o f their accomplices was also disclosed as Lokend e r @ Lucky. The petitioner als o demarcated the p lace of occurrence and got reco v ered a sum of Rs.5,000/- out o f the looted amou n t. Subsequently co-accused G a utam, Sandeep and Janesh wer e also nominated as additional accused. The t e st identification parade of th e petitioner and c o-accused was conducted an d they were identified by th e complainant. In v estigation now stands concluded.

¶19

It i s argued by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implicat e d in this case. He is in custod y since long. The trial will tak e considerable ti m e to conclude. No useful purpo s e would be served by detainin g him in custody anymore. A compromise ha s been arrived at between th e

¶20

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

CRM-M-12783-2026 (O&M) 3

¶22

complainant an d the petitioner and the complai n ant has agreed to withdraw th e proceedings aga i nst the petitioner and to get th e FIR quashed. It is, therefore , argued that the p etition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Per contra, learned State counse l has argued that taking int o consideration th e gravity of the allegations as l e velled against the petitioner, h e does not deserv e to be extended benefit of bai l and the petition is liable to b e dismissed.

¶24

Po w er of attorney on behalf of lear n ed counsel for the complainan t has been filed w hich is taken on record. H o wever, he has submitted tha t affidavit Annex u re P5 has been sworn by the c omplainant and he has entere d into a compromise with the petitioner and the co-accused out of his free-will an d consent and has submitted that the complainan t has no objection if the instan t petition is allow e d.

¶25

Thi s Court has heard the rival sub m issions made by learned counse l for the parties at considerable length.

¶26

Th e petitioner alongwith the co-ac c used is alleged to have forme d membership of a n unlawful assembly with the c o-accused and in prosecution o f common objecti o n thereof, is alleged to have in t ercepted the complainant on th e fateful day, assa u lted him and robbed him of his belongings. The petitioner wa s not only shown in the CCTV footage of the ca m era installed near the place o f occurrence but also during the test identifica t ion parade conducted, he wa s identified by the victim. The allegations agains t him are serious in nature. Th e

¶27

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CRM-M-12783-2026 (O&M) 4

¶29

question of ge n uineness of the affidavit wh i ch is allegedly sworn by th e complainant has to be tested during trial. Th o ugh the allegations as levelle d against the peti t ion make out a prima facie c ase for commission of subjec t offences against him, however he has remain e d in custody since 24.09.2025 . The trial will o b viously take considerable tim e to conclude as 22 prosecutio n witnesses are ye t to be examined. It is well settl e d proposition of law that bail i s the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incar c eration should not be replica o f post-conviction s entencing. The object of the j a il is to secure appearance of th e accused during trial, and it cannot be preve n tive or punitive. Taking int o consideration th e period of incarceration of the p etitioner and the above facts bu t without meanin g to make any comment on the m erit of the case, this Court is o f the considered opinion that a case is made out f or grant of bail to the petitione r at this stage. Ac c ordingly, the petition is allowe d and the petitioner is ordered t o be released on bail subject to his furnishing per s onal as well as surety bonds t o the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ C hief Judicial Magistrate/Dut y Magistrate conc e rned and on the following cond i tions :-

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall not di r ectly or indirectly make an y i n ducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with th e f a cts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in an y m anner whatsoever.

¶31

(ii) The petitioner shall not l eave the country under an y c i rcumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.

¶32

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶33

CRM-M-12783-2026 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date o f h e aring.

¶36

(iv) The petitioner shall provide h is permanent address as well a s p r esent address before the lear n ed trial Court at the time o f f u rnishing of bonds and shall not change the same withou t i n forming the trial Court.

¶37

( v ) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PA N C ard if any and details of his m obile phone number(s) to th e l e arned trial Court at the time of f urnishing of bonds and in case , a n y change in his mobile phone n umber takes place, then he shal l i n form about the same to the le a rned trial Court in advance an d s h all keep his mobile phone swit c h on all times.

¶38

( v i) The petitioner shall deposi t his passport, if any, with th e l e arned trial Court.

¶39

In the eventuality of breach o f any of the aforementione d conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an applicatio n seeking cancella t ion of the bail.

¶40

Sin c e the main petition has been a llowed, pending application, i f any, is rendered i nfructuous.

¶41

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶42

13.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶43

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.13 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Shiven v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiven v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagroop Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raju Vs State of Punjab

Dalvir Singh Alias Soni Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Vs State of Haryana