Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Regular Bail in ATM Robbery Case; Cites CCTV Evidence, Eyewitness Account and Criminal Antecedents
Case Name: Sarabjit Singh alias Gora v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-45745 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to grant regular bail to an accused charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to robbery and criminal intimidation, holding that the allegations were grave and supported by an eyewitness account as well as CCTV footage. The Court held that the petitioner’s antecedents, the stage of trial, and the likelihood of absconding or obstructing proceedings weighed against the grant of bail.
Summary: The prosecution case was that the complainant was accosted inside an ATM booth, threatened with a firearm, and forcibly robbed of cash. It was alleged that while the co-accused executed the robbery inside the ATM, the petitioner waited outside on a motorcycle and facilitated the escape after the offence. The complainant’s mobile phone was thrown back into the ATM after cash was removed from its cover.
The petitioner sought regular bail contending that he was not named in the FIR, that his implication was based on disclosure statements, and that his identification was belated. It was further argued that investigation was complete, nothing remained to be recovered, and continued incarceration served no useful purpose.
The State opposed bail by placing reliance on an eyewitness who had identified the petitioner, corroborative CCTV footage, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. It was also pointed out that several prosecution witnesses had already been examined and that release at this stage could jeopardise the trial.
The Court, upon examining the record, found that the allegations disclosed a coordinated act of robbery involving threats and use of force, affecting public safety. The Court noted that the petitioner was alleged to have actively participated by facilitating the offence and escape, and that the material on record prima facie supported the prosecution case. The petitioner’s involvement in other criminal cases was also taken into account.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail. It held that considering the seriousness of the allegations, supporting evidence, stage of trial, and the petitioner’s antecedents, no case was made out for grant of bail. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial.