Allowed

Mustkeen @ Kala v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2026CRM-M/24997/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS for arrest in a dacoity/robbery FIR where the petitioner was not named in the FIR and evidence rested on disclosure statements and a cash recovery. With investigation complete, charges framed, and twenty witnesses unexamined, the High Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Mustkeen @ Kala Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-24997-2026 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

329

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-24997-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026

¶6

Mustkeen @ Kala Banda

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶12

Present:Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ashish Bhatia, AAG, Haryana.

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.161 dated 29.05.2025, registered under Sections 309(6) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Police Station Kheripul, District Faridabad.

¶16

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint moved by complainant Brahmpal alleging therein that during the intervening night of 28/29.05.2025, while he was sleeping at his residence, about seven persons forcibly entered his house, assaulted him and absconded with cash amounting to Rs.8,200/- and a gold chain. On hearing his cries, his son Dinesh reached the spot and attempted to apprehend the assailants, who, however, managed to flee. On the basis of the said

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-24997-2026 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. During investigation, the complainant was medico-legally examined and was found to have sustained one abrasion near the left eye. Subsequently, on the basis of secret information, the petitioner and three other co-accused were arrested. The petitioner suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the subject crime and got recovered an amount of Rs.2500/-, which was stated to be part of the stolen money. Subsequently, offence under Section 309(6) of BNS was deleted. Investigation now stands completed.

¶21

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR. He was arrested subsequently only on the basis of secret information and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was ever conducted. There is neither any CCTV footage nor any independent witness connecting the petitioner with the occurrence. The prosecution case against the petitioner rests only on the disclosure statements of the accused and the alleged recovery of Rs.2500/-, which does not establish his complicity. Learned counsel submits that the complainant sustained only a simple injury and no further medical opinion was obtained. It is also argued that while the FIR refers to seven assailants, the challan has been presented against eight accused, thereby creating doubt regarding the prosecution version. The petitioner has remained in custody since 13.06.2025. Investigation stands concluded and challan has been presented. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time as none out of total twenty prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His further detention would serve no useful purpose. No useful purpose would be served

¶22

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-24997-2026 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

¶28

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have trespassed into the complainant's house and assaulted him. The petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable period. The investigation stands concluded, the final report has already been presented and charges have been framed. The status report further reveals that there are as many as twenty prosecution witnesses and none of them has been examined so far. Thus, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the prosecution primarily relies upon the disclosure statements and the recoveries allegedly effected during investigation. The evidentiary value of such material would be a matter for appreciation during trial. Since the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation, his continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶29

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-24997-2026 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be

¶33

construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

¶34

07.07.2026

¶35

Waseem R. Ansari

¶36

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶37

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶38

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mustkeen @ Kala v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkeen @ Kala 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

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Bobby Bhatia Vs Munish Kumar Gupta

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Tamana@Tamnna Vs State of Punjab

Jaspreet Singh@Jassi Vs State of Punjab

Shaidan @ Arman Vs State of Haryana