Sahil vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222+271
CRM-M-27847-2026
ANKIT ALIAS GOLI
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
......Respondent
CRM-M-52802-2026
SAHIL
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
......Respondent
Decided on : 04.11.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-27847-2026.
Mr. Suraj Mandhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-52802-2026.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions
shall stand disposed of, as they arise out of one common FIR.
1. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the
petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 2
criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed
hereunder:-
Sr.
No.
Petition
Name of
Petitioner
FIR
Date Section(s) Police
Station
District
No.
No.
(s)
1. CRM-M-
Ankit
alias Goli,
256 30.08.2025 309(4), 3(5) of BNS
Uchana Jind
27847-
(erstwhile sections
392, 34 of IPC)
2026
aged
about 22
years
2. CRM-M-
Sahil,
256 30.08.2025 309(4), 3(5) of BNS
Uchana Jind
52802-
aged
about 26
(erstwhile sections
392, 34 of IPC)
2026
years
st
2. 1 bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-4074-2026, filed by the
petitioner namely Ankit alias Goli, was dismissed as withdrawn, at that
stage, vide order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-2).
3. Case of the prosecution, as discussed in the order dated
22.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind (Annexure
P-1), is reproduced here under, for reference:-
“In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on
30.08.2025, SI Balwan Singh 676 alongwith Head
Constable Rajesh 897, Constable Surender 577 in
government vehicle bearing registration No.HR-
31GV-3405 which was driven by SPO Omparkash 272
was present near Uchana Mandi Gate for patrolling
then a telephonic information was received from MHC
of Police Station that a call was received from ERV
383 that two unknown boys had snatched an Auto
Rickshaw from a person near village Ghaso. Upon
which, he alongwith fellow officials reached at the
spot where Satyawan son of Fakir Chand, resident of
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 3
Punjabi Chowk, Narwana (hereinafter to be referred
to as complainant) was found present, who presented
an application before the police.
The complainant alleged in the application that
he is working as driver and carry passengers in his
Auto Rickshaw in Narwana. On 30.08.2025 at around
12.15 AM, he was standing at Railway Station and
was waiting for passengers in his Auto Rickshaw
bearing registration No.HR-56B-3183 then two young
boys came to him and asked him to take them to Jind.
He told them that he will charge fare of 800/-then ₹
they told him that they were students and study in Jind
Academy, hence, they could not pay that much money.
Thereafter, the fare of 600/- was settled with those
₹
two boys. Thereafter, he took those two boys in his
Auto Rickshaw and left for Jind. At about 1.00/1.30
A.M., he had crossed some distance from village
Ghaso and reached at canal bridge near Tarkha Kothi
then they stopped his auto rickshaw and said they had
to take some goods and asked him to take them to
canal track. After going about two killas ahead on the
canal track, they stopped his auto rickshaw and tied
his both hands and legs with a white cloth (parna) and
snatched his mobile phone, approximately 1200/- ₹
cash and his Auto Rickshaw. They threatened him
with a knife that they would kill him, if he would raise
noise. After that, somehow, he freed himself from the
tied clothes and thereafter, reached a nearby dhaba
and asked a passerby to dial 112, thereafter, after
sometime a police vehicle came there. Ultimately,
action against the culprits was sought.”
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 4
4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submit that
neither of the petitioners was named in the FIR, nor any specific role or
description was attributed to them by the complainant at the initial stage.
It is further submitted that no independent witness was
associated by the police at the time of the alleged recovery, which casts
serious doubt on the prosecution version.
5. Learned counsel further submit that all the material
prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have already been
examined by learned trial Court. Therefore, there is no likelihood or
apprehension of the petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence
or influencing any of the witnesses in the event of grant of bail.
6. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are inside jail
since 31.08.2025, and have undergone incarceration for a period of
approximately one year and two months.
7. Learned counsel also submit that investigation in the case
already stands concluded and challan has been presented before learned
trial Court. Thus, keeping the petitioners behind bars for an indefinite
period would serve no useful purpose, particularly when conclusion of
the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, learned counsel
pray for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners in the
present case.
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 5
8. Per contra , learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer
and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits
that offences allegedly committed by the petitioners are of serious nature.
It is contended that both the petitioners acted in concert
while committing the robbery and the looted auto-rickshaw along with an
amount of Rs.650/- was recovered from the accused persons.
Complainant's mobile phone and two knives, allegedly used in the
commission of the offence, were subsequently recovered pursuant to their
disclosure and re-disclosure statements.
Moreover, learned State counsel submits that, apart from the
present case, both the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases as
well. Petitioner-Sahil is stated to be involved in two other cases, whereas
petitioner-Ankit alias Goli is involved in three other cases. Thus, it is
contended that petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail in
the present case. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays for dismissal
of the present petitions.
9. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available
before it.
10. Undoubtedly, present case involves allegations of robbery of
an auto-rickshaw driver. However, petitioners are inside jail for a period
of approximately one year and two months.
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 6
11. On a specific query raised by this Court, learned State
counsel apprises the Court that, out of total 30 prosecution witnesses, 15
have been examined so far. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time.
12. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the
period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners, stage of the
trial and likelihood of its taking considerable time to conclude, this Court
deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the
petitioners in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions is
allowed. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail,
subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/
Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
13. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
14. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-27847-2026
CRM-M-52802-2026 7
15. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are
directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, prosecution is at
liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail granted to
the petitioners, vide present order.
16. Both the petitions stand disposed of.
17. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
04.11.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
LAVISHA
2026.11.05 13:51
I agree to specified portions
of this document