Sahil @ Sahil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 158 dated 01.04.2 0 22, registere d against him under Sections 3 7 9B, 392 of Indian Penal Code a nd Section 2 5 of Arms Act, at Police Stat i on Beri, District Jhajjar, has f i led present p e tition under Section 483 of BN S S.

¶14

Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are being tak e n from paras 4 and 5 of the sta t us report dated 09.03.2026 file d by way of a f fidavit of Anil Kumar, HPS, A ssistant Commissioner of Pol i ce, Beri, Dis t rict Jhajjar, be noticed hereinbe l ow:-

¶15

“ 4. On 01.04.2022, a in fo rmation was received from MH C Police Station to the Investi g ation agency that there has be e n a robbery at a Liquor Vend in Sheriya. On this informa t ion investigation agency reache d at the place of occurrence w h ere

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-9727-2026

¶18

-2-

¶19

the complainant Vicky S/o B alraj R/o Village Gangtan Dis t rict Jhajjar moved his written c omplaint in the manner that, “ To SHO, Police Station, Beri, I request that my name is Vicky S/o Balraj, resident of village Gangtan, District Jhajjar, I have studied till class 7^th , my ag e is 30 years, I have taken a liquor contract vend in village S h eriya. Today on 01.04.2022, at around 10:30 AM, I and m y friend Vijay S/o Hawasin resi d ent of Sheriya were sitting at t h e liquor vend, when a Pulsar b ike with 3 boys riding on it sto p ped in front of my vend, one b oy remained sitting on the bik e and two boys got down from the bike and came in front of th e shop, one of whom I know, whose name is Sahil (present pet i tioner) S/o Mahender residen t of Gochhi, Sahil and another boy whom I do not know, whose mouth was covered with a cloth, came inside the shop, S a hil took out a pistol and picked u p 4 100 PIPER bottles which w ere kept at the vend, showing the pistol towards me, took out around Rs.5800/- which wer e kept on the cash box and all t h ree boys rode their bike and ran towards village Sheriya, this entire incident is recorded in the C CTV camera installed in the v e nd. I will present to you that S a hil and two other boys who c a me with him, whose names an d addresses I do not know. L e gal action should be taken agai n st these three. I have informed the police station about this inci d ent by phone.

¶20

5. That on the basis of a f oresaid complaint, the present F IR No. 158 dated 01.04.2022 w as initially registered U/s 3 7 9B,

¶21

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-9727-2026 -3-

¶23

392 of IPC and Section 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act in P.S. Beri, District Jhajjar and the inve s tigation was set into motion.” After the registration of th e FIR, investigations were set i nto motion, d uring which place of occurre n ce was inspected, site plan w as prepared and CCTV footage of the in c ident accompanied by certifi c ate under Se c tion 65B of Indian Evidence A c t, handed over by the complain a nt, were ta k en into possession. Docu m ents further reveal that pre s ent petitione r , namely, Sahil, son of Mohin d er Singh, resident of Teshil B eri, Village G ochi, Jhajjar, co-accused Vino d alias Kala and Sachin, who h ad been arr e sted in another case bearin g FIR No. 68 dated 01.04.2 0 22, registere d u/s 379B, 392, 506 of IPC an d Section 25-54-59 of Arms Ac t , at Police St a tion Dujana, during the cours e of interrogation of the said c a se, confesse d to their involvement in th e present case. Resultantly, after securing their production warrants, th e y were formally arrested in the present c a se on 21.4.2022.

¶24

Pursuant thereto, an applica t ion for grant of bail was move d by the petiti o ner before the learned Additi o nal Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. T he same was allowed vide order dated 24.5. 2 023. 3. Brief submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that si n ce then, pet i tioner had been regularly app e aring before the concerned Court, however, on account certain unavoidable reasons, he (P) could not appea r on the date fi xed. Resultantly, in terms of o r der dated 16.01.2025 (Annexur e P- 3), his ( P ) bail was cancelled, bail b o nds and surety bonds were a lso cancelled and forfeited to the State. His presence was sought to be sec u red through N on-bailable Warrants. Learne d counsel further submits that at the relevant t ime, i.e., around 16.1.2025, p etitioner was in fact admitte d in

¶25

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-9727-2026 -4-

¶27

Rehabilit a tion Centre and was undergo i ng treatment. However, this f act could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Subsequently, on 5.4.2 0 22, petitione r was arrested in another case be a ring FIR No. 68 dated 01.04.2 0 22, registere d u/s 379B, 392, 506 of IPC an d Section 25-54-59 of Arms Ac t , at Police St a tion Dujana. After securing h is production warrants, he was rearrested i n the present case on 30.4.2025 a nd has been in custody since th e n. Learned counsel further c ontends that petitioner did not intention a lly remain absent from the Co u rt on the date fixed, i.e. 16.1.2 0 25, but the a b sence was on account of reason s mentioned hereinabove.

¶28

It is further the submission o f learned counsel that lenient v i ew deserves t o be taken in favour of petitio n er as the likelihood of comple t ion of trial in the near future is quite remote, for still out of 19 cited prosecu t ion witnesses, only 10 have been examined. When viewed in the light of the submissi o ns advanced hereinabove, furth e r incarceration of petitioner w o uld not serve any useful purpose as the sam e would not only be violative of his rights un d er Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India, including right to spe e dy trial but w ould also be against the princ i ple of “Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception”. Prayer f or allowing the petition has been made.

¶29

Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State co u nsel submits that petitioner, a h abitual offender does not des e rve the relief sought for. Even on 16.1.2025, neither he (P) himself appeared nor moved a n y application seeking exempti o n from appearing in the Court. If he (P) w a s actually admitted in Rehabil i tation Centre, this fact could have been bro u ght to the attention of Cour t . Further, on the same day, i.e. 16.1.202 5 , 3 PWs were present but they could not be examined on acc o unt

¶30

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-9727-2026 -5-

¶32

of sudde n absence of petitioner. It is furt h er the submission of learned S t ate counsel t hat given the past antecede n ts and record, if extended the concessi o n of bail, likelihood of petition e r fleeing from process of justic e by not appe a ring in the Court is quite hig h . Dismissal of petition has been prayed fo r .

¶33

Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

¶34

Reverting back to the facts o f the case in hand, factual asp e cts leading t o lodging of registration of FIR h ave already been noticed in pa r a 2 of this o r der. There is also no denying of the fact that that petitioner has remained involved in four other crimin a l cases, the details of which have been me n tioned in para 19 of the status report. Admittedly, in the pre s ent case, out of 19 cited prosecution witness e s, only 10 have been examined. It has alrea d y been noted that since 16.1.2 0 25, petitioner has been in cust o dy, the prosp e ct of completion of trial in near future is quite remote, this Cou r t is of the op i nion that his (P) further incarc e ration would not only be viola t ive of his rig h ts under Article 21 of the Con s titution of India, including rig h t to speedy tr i al but would also be against the principle of “ Bail is a general r ule and inca r ceration is an exception ” as h e ld by Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶35

In view of submissions ad v anced by learned counsel for the petitione r , but without commenting furt h er on the merits of the case, le s t it may prej u dice the trial, petitioner is gran t ed the concession of bail subje c t to his furnis h ing bail bonds and two local s u reties to the satisfaction of lear n ed

¶36

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CRM-M-9727-2026

¶38

-6-

¶39

trial Cou r t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the followin g conditions:-

¶40

(i) The petitioner will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶41

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall s urrender his passport before the learned trial court and shall not leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Court .

¶42

(iv) The petitioner shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶43

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶44

(vi) The petitioner shall n o t in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioner seeks to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same. (viii) The petitioner will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶45

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed a p propriate while releasing the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be

¶46

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CRM-M-9727-2026 -7-

¶48

at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his order.

¶49

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶50

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 27.03.2026 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶51

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sahil @ Sahil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil @ Sahil Kumar v. State of Haryana

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

Daulat Masih @ Daulat Ram @ Guri Vs State of Punjab

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaswinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Anothers

Kirandeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Goldy Alias Goldy Kumar Vs State of Punjab

State of Haryana Vs Muni Ram and Others