AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral)
This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.135 dated 29.04.2026, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 112(2), 303, 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’.
The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Raj Kumari’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 29.04.2026 at about 07:00 pm, she had gone to attend ‘Bhagwad Katha’ at ‘Banke Bihari Temple’, where some unknown person committed theft of her gold chain.
It is case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, with the help of CCTV footage, the identities of the assailants were established and two members of abovementioned gang, namely ‘Sandeep Garg’ and ‘Deepak’, were arrested. As per prosecution, the above-named accused suffered their respective disclosure statements, wherein they nominated the present petitioner as one of their accomplice.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.
Heard.
The record has been perused carefully.
A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-
that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;
that being female, the petitioner deserves a considerate view;
that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years;
that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is disclosure statements of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to admissibility of above-mentioned statements in evidence and its credibility, as the same were recorded when the co-accused were in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statements recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact did not take place, prima facie the abovementioned statements appear to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;
that benefit of pre-arrest bail has already been accorded to co-accused of petiotner;
that stolen property has already been recovered from the possession of co-accused;
that investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;
that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;
that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;
that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and
that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.
Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
In view of above, the present petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is hereby accorded the benefit of pre-arrest bail. It is hereby directed that in the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when notice is served upon her, in writing, by the Investigating Officer. She shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
It is, however, clarified that any observations recorded in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.