Kaka Alias Golu v. State of Ut Chandigarh

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

26.11.2024 Sector-26, East 309, 3(5), 317(2), 310(2) of BNS 2023

¶1The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "4. That the instant FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint given by Smt. Raksha Sharma, aged 82 years, who stated that in the night of 25/26.11.2024 four unknown persons entered her house, wrapped her in a blanket, threatened her and took away jewellery, two mobile phones and cash of Rs. 37,000/-. On the basis of the said information the present FIR was registered."

¶4The petitioner's counsel submits that co-accused/Jasmeet Singh @ Sharry and Varinder Singh have already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide common order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-31407-2025. Counsel further prays

for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel also submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: "5. That after the registration of the instant FIR, during the investigation, it came to light that the accused persons had entered the house and forcefully robbed the complainant of cash and jewellery. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was one of the individuals involved in the crime, even though the complainant initially stated that there were only four persons, investigation revealed involvement of five accused.

¶6That during the course of the investigation. significant recoveries were made at the instance of the accused persons, linking them directly to the crime. Specifically, the following articles were recovered from the respective accused at their homes in Ludhiana: From the present petitioner, Kaka @ Golu: Two gold chains, one pair of gold bangles, and one gold Tikka. From co-accused Lakshay: One gold chain, one silver glass, one silver gadavi, one silver Ganesh Murti, one silver Shiv Parvati Murti, and one Samsung mobile phone of black and yellow color. From co-accused Jaswant: Two gold kadas (ladies) and one mangalsutra. From co-accused Varinder: Two gold rings (gents) and one pair of jhumkas. From co-accused Jasmeet Singh @ Sharry: One gold and silver Rado wrist watch, two pairs of gold tops, one gold chain with locket, and one ladies gold ring." REASONING:

¶7Co-accused with similar role have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 4 of the

bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 29.11.2024 and accordingly his custody in this FIR is approximately 09 months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶8Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶9Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000.

¶10Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged.

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶12This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶13The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the

¶14The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.

¶15This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

¶16Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶17In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."

¶18Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

12.09.2025 anju rani

No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 12.09.2025 Kaka @ Golu ...Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh and Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent-UT. ****