(Oral):

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 439 of Cr.P.C) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.80 dated 09.04.2026 registered under Section 310 (4) of BNS 2023 (corresponding Section 399 IPC) (which was deleted) and Section 310 (2) and 238 BNS added later on (corresponding Section 395/201 of IPC) at Police Station Mulana, District Ambala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that similarly situated co-accused Sunil Kumar, against whom the similar allegations have been made, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in CRM-M-33990-2026 on 23.06.2026 and therefore, the petitioner being similarly situated be also extended the same benefit.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

5. On instructions from Mr. Harjinder Singh, ASI, learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that co-accused Sunil Kumar has been granted the benefit of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.06.2026 while passing order in CRM-M-33990- 2026.

6. On being asked to point out any differentiating fact between the co-accused Sunil Kumar and the petitioner Ajay, learned State counsel has not been able to provide any differentiating fact qua the allegations made against both the co-accused.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. Once, co-accused Sunil Kumar has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in CRM-M-33990-2026 on 23.06.2026, the said benefit can only be denied to the petitioner in case, there is any differentiating fact between the petitioner and the co-accused Sunil Kumar.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to point out any differentiating fact between the petitioner and co-accused Sunil Kumar.

10. Further, a detailed order has already been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court giving the reasons for granting the regular bail to co-accused Sunil Kumar, which ipso facto become applicable in the case of the petitioner as well. For the ready reference, the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench is as under:-

                    “Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.80 dated 09.04.2026 registered under Sections 310 (4), 310 (2) of BNS (the offence under Section 238 of BNS added subsequently in the FIR) at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala.

                    2. On a complaint having been submitted by one Avinash Verma, the FIR in question was registered, the contents of which are as under:-

                    “To Station House Officer, Police Station Mullana. SubjectRegarding the assault on the applicant by the accused Rohit, Sunil, Himanshu. Ajay and 2/3 of their other associates and robbing the applicant of Rs.5 lakh. Sir, it is requested that I, Avinash Verma, son of Sanjeev Kumar Verma, resident of village Kurli, police station Lalru, district Mohali, Punjab, run a goldsmith shop in my village by the name of Verma Jewellers. My acquaintance Sukhchain Singh alias Golu, resident of Batoli, police station Lalru, district Mohali, Punjab, comes to my shop. Sukhchain Singh told me that he knows a party that works to double money and you will have to come with me to them. On date 20-03-2026, during the afternoon, Sukhchain Singh made me sit in his car and took me near Khanna Farm on Chandigarh Highway. Where we met three boys whose names were told by Sukhchain Singh as Rohit resident of Gaindapura, Sunil resident of Gundiana, Himanshu resident of Bilaspur, Ajay resident of Maggarpur, Who told me that we work to double the money of more than Rs.10 lakh only for our special friends and take a blank cheque as security for doubling the money. Believing my friend Sukhchain Singh and those boys, I gave an AXIS Bank cheque filled with an amount of three lakh rupees without a date to Rohit and gave two lakh rupees in cash. Rohit took the remaining five lakh rupees in cash and called us to Zirakpur. After that, I along with my friend Sukhchain Singh sat in his car and went to a Zirakpur flat. Where Rohit, Sunil, and Himanshu met. Who, in front of us, placed white paper in a die machine and showed us how genuine notes are made. According to what Sukhchain Singh said, I came to trust those boys and Rohit gave me about Rs.8,000 in Rs.100/100 notes to spend/circulate in the market. After that, I and Sukhchain both came back and we used that money in the market. Today on date 09-04-2026, taking five lakh rupees cash, I along with my friend Sukhchain Singh sat in his car and went near Dheen village bus stop as instructed by Rohit. Where Rohit, Sunil, Himanshu, Ajay and their other associates were found with a black-colored Scorpio and a white-colored Ignis car. When both of us asked Rohit and his associates about how many days it would take to return the doubled money, they, upon seeing the bag full of money in my hand, started beating me up. When Sukhchain Singh rescued me from Rohit and his associates, Rohit and his associates snatched the bag full of money from my hand and fled the spot in their respective vehicles, and while leaving, threatened to kill me. Whom we searched for a lot on our own level but could not find. That legal action be taken against Rohit, Sunil, Himanshu, Ajay and their other associates and my seven lakh rupees and cheque be got returned. Applicant SD/- AVINASH VERMA Avinash Verma son of Sanjeev Kumar Verma resident of village Kurli, police station Lalru, district Mohali, Punjab. Mob. No. 62808-81424 Date 09-04- 2026.”

                    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further submits that in fact, it was a case of some money transaction which has also been settled between the parties. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is in custody for the last more than two months; no recovery has to be made from him; trial will take a sufficient long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any longer.

                    4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the petitioner is involved in four other cases out of which one case is pertaining to counterfeit currency. He submits that in fact in this case also, there was an agreement to print counterfeit currency. Learned counsel submits that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may try to influence and interfere with the investigation and may also abscond.

                    5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner deserves to be released on bail. He is in custody for the last 2 months and 9 days. As to whether the allegations are correct or not, shall be determined at the stage of trial. It has been stated that the matter pertained to some money transaction, which stands settled. Be that as it may, trial will take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

                    6. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.”

11. Keeping in view the above, as no differentiating fact between the petitioner and co-accused Sunil Kumar, who has already been extended the benefit of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, stating due reasons, the petitioner is also granted the same benefit on the same analogy.

12. In view of the above and without commenting upon the merits of the case, present petition is allowed and accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned unless and until required to be kept behind the bars in any other case.

13. However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.