Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    ARJUN RAWAT v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

    206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

    AT CHANDIGARH

    CRM-M-29806-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.06.2025

    Arjun Rawat ......Petitioner Vs.

    State of U.T. Chandigarh ......Respondent

    CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

    Present: Mr. Jatin Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

    Mr. Rahul Arora, Addl. Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh, for the respondent.

    ****

    SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

    1. The present petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in FIR No.49 dated 02.04.2025 registered under Sections 309(6), 317 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh.

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case against the petitioner is totally false and concocted. The petitioner is not involved in the crime as alleged against him and the police have fabricated the alleged recovery from the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner is HIV patient and is suffering with various other medical problems. Lastly, he contends that the petitioner is not involved in any other case, except the present case and he is in custody since 06.04.2025. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial.

    1

    3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh, submits that mobile phone as well as Aadhar Card of the complainant have been recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that challan is ready and will be presented before the trial Court on the date fixed. He further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and if he be granted concession of regular bail, there are chances that he could misuse the same and would influence the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

    4. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant concession of regular bail.

    5. Dismissed.

    6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

    JUDGE

    05.06.2025

    Virrendra Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    ARJUN RAWAT v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
    (Jun 5, 2025)