JAKIR ALIAS BHURA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the instant petition filed under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.189 dtd. 20/5/2025 registered under Ss. 121(1), 132 and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Ss. 310(2), 61(2) and 238(C) of the BNS and Sec. 25/54/59 of the Arms Act were added later on), at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of complaint moved by the complainant-Ankit Kumar who alleged that on the intervening night of 19/20/5/2025, 15 unknown persons with muffled faces (including the petitioner), in conspiracy with each other and armed with dangerous weapons, committed robbery by assaulting the complainant-a public officer after criminally trespassing into the warehouse, breaking the lock of the godown and looted 120 confiscated fertilizer bags.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged incident. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further argued that no test identification parade was conducted by the police in the present case and the petitioner has been falsely roped in without any incriminating evidence. He further argued that if the prosecution version is taken to be true, even then no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. Further, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. The petitioner is in custody since 29/5/2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. There are total 24 prosecution witnesses in this case but none has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.