Rakesh Vs State of Haryana

Petitioner, who is an acc u sed in case FIR No. 177 d a ted 20.4.202 2 , registered against him unde r Sections 511, 457, 427, 38 0 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Mo d el Town, District Rewari, has f i led the prese n t petition for grant of bail unde r Section 483 of BNSS.

¶15

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:- At about 6.10 PM on 20.4.2 0 22, ASI Ajay Singh who along w ith other po l ice officials was present at R aj iv Chowk, Rewari, in connec t ion with cri m e and patrolling duty, receiv e d a telephonic message that an attempt t o commit theft has been made at ATM of Bank of Baroda situate d in Brass M a rket, Rewari. Immediately the r eafter, the police team reache d at

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.28 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-48351-2025 -2-

¶18

the discl o sed site where they met Priya, B ranch Manager, Bank of Bar o da, who mov e d a written complaint pointing t herein that in the intervening n i ght of 19/20. 4 .202, somebody had attempted to commit theft at the ATM of t h eir bank loc a ted in Brass Market, Rewari by breaking open the shutter lo c ks. This fact, first of all, came to the notice o f the Sweeper at about 9 AM, w ho also noti c ed a bed sheet, gas lighter f o und lying near the ATM. Po l ice authoriti e s also noticed that CCTV cam e ra and emergency siren cable h ad also been destroyed by the thieves. On t h e basis of said complaint, a for m al case vid e FIR No. 177 dated 20.4.202 2 , was registered against unkn o wn persons, u nder Sections 511, 457, 427, 3 8 0 of Indian Penal Code, at Po l ice Station M odel Town, Rewari.

¶19

During the course of investi g ation, rough site plan of the p l ace of occurr e nce was prepared and CCTV f o otage was collected. On the b a sis of incri m inating material collected by I O, co-accused Rohit and Par v esh Kumar w ere arrested, who during interrogation admitted to t h eir involvem e nt in the incident and discl o sed that they along with pre s ent petitione r and other accused had attem p ted to commit theft in the A T M. During t h e further course of investigatio n , a car bearing registration No. H R- 36L-399 2 , gas cutter and two gas cylin d ers, which were already in po l ice possessio n in some other case, were also t aken into possession in the pre s ent case. Pre s ence of the petitioner, who was confined in Narnaul Jail in s o me other cas e , was procured through production of warrants. He was form a lly arrested i n the present case as well on 2 5 .6.2024. During interrogation , he also adm i tted to his involvement in the i ncident and pointed out that w h en they noti c ed ATM of a bank in Brass Ma r ket, wherein no security guard w as deployed , they thought of committing the theft, broke open the locks

¶20

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.28 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-48351-2025 -3-

¶22

installed o utside the ATM, cut the wires of siren, while they were tryin g to cut/break open the ATM, they heard a p o lice siren from a little distance a nd immediat e ly sped away. Thereafter, th e y committed another theft of l ike nature in Rajasthan. On completion of i n vestigation, challan complete i n all respects w ere filed.

¶23

Application filed by petitio n er for grant of bail was dismi s sed by the l earned Sessions Judge, Re w ari, vide order dated 8.5.2 0 25. Aggrieve d of which, the present petition h as been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the peti t ioner contends that petitioner is not in any w h ich way involved in the pres e nt incident. He has been fal s ely arrayed a s an accused in the present c a se only on account of disclo s ure statemen t s of co-accused Rohit and Parv e sh. In fact, the vehicle used in the commission of offence bearing registra t ion No. HR-36L-3992, gas c u tter and two g as cylinders were recovered at the instance of co-accused Aks h ay Kumar a n d Praveen. This fact also in d icates the false implication of the present p e titioner. It is further the sub m ission of learned counsel that the police au t horities got swayed by the past antecedents of petitioner and, t h us, unnecess a rily dragged him in the pres e nt case. Simply because sev e ral criminal c ases are registered against pe t itioner in which also he has been falsely i m plicated, can by itself be not a g round to deny him the relief so u ght for. Mo r eso, when nothing incriminat i ng material was recovered at the instance o f petitioner connecting him wit h the commission of offence. W h en appreciat e d in light of the submissio n s advanced hereinabove, lear n ed counsel c ontends that lenient view des e rves to be taken in favour of the petitione r , who has been in custody si n ce 25.6.2024, moreso, when the likelihoo d of completion of trial in the ne a r future is quite remote, as non e of

¶24

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.28 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-48351-2025 -4-

¶26

the prose c ution witnesses have been exa m ined till date. Prayer for allo w ing present p e tition was made. 4. Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State cou n sel filed a detailed status rep o rt by way of affidavit of Sure n der Sheoran, HPS, Deputy Superintendent o f Police, Bawal, District Re w ari, highlight i ng therein that only after c ollecting sufficient incrimina t ing material a gainst petitioner, he was array e d as an accused. It is further the submissi o n of learned State counsel that t he vehicle used in the commis s ion of offenc e , was though recovered at the instance of co-accused Rohit a nd Parvesh, b ut the same is registered in th e name of petitioner. It is also the submissi o n of learned State counsel that petitioner stands convicted in f our other cri m inal cases, including one of t h e like nature, the details of w h ich have bee n mentioned in para 11 of statu s report. Thus, as per learned S t ate counsel, p etitioner is a habitual offender and if extended the concessio n of bail, the likelihood of him fleeing fr o m the process of justice by not appearin g in Court and committing y e t another offence is quite h i gh. Dismissa l of petition has been prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documen t s on record.

¶27

Factual backdrop of the c ase and the role played by the petitione r in the entire incident has been highlighted in para 2 of this or d er. In view o f the submissions advanced by learned State counsel, but wit h out adverting to the merits of the case, the C ourt is of the opinion that no c ase for grant o f bail is made out at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition b e ing devoid of any merit is her e by dismisse d .