The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a car theft-related case registered under Sections 379/411 IPC, holding that an accused's involvement in numerous other criminal cases cannot, by itself, be the sole ground for denying bail.

Justice Manisha Batra said, "His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be sole reason for denying benefit of bail to him. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the nature of the subject offence, and the attendant facts and circumstances, but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail."

The case arose from an FIR registered in January 2024 after the complainant's Swift car was found stolen from outside his house. CCTV footage led to the arrest of one Dimple Kapoor Honey, whose disclosure statement led to the arrest of three more accused, Harpreet alias Ghanta, Neeraj alias Shishu, and Girjashankar alias Bobby, who admitted involvement and disclosed that they had sold the stolen vehicle to the petitioner for ₹1,00,000.

The petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025 and, on interrogation, disclosed that he had sold parts of the stolen vehicle to different customers for ₹1,30,000. Investigation stood completed and the challan had been presented.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that more than four months had passed since dismissal of the earlier petition, that he was no longer required for investigation, that the challan had already been presented, that the trial would take considerable time, and that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, urging that continued detention served no useful purpose and that he could not be kept in custody indefinitely merely because he was involved in other cases.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations were serious, that the petitioner had a long history of similar offences with as many as 25 cases registered against him, and that there was a likelihood of repetition of similar offences if released on bail.

The Court noted that the petitioner was alleged to have received a stolen vehicle and sold off its parts to different persons, that he had been in custody since 20.09.2025, and that the trial would obviously take time to conclude. Weighing these factors against the nature of the offence and the period already spent in custody.

Allowing the petition, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

Click here to read order