IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

211

CRM-M-49725-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2026

Sarvar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

*****

Present : Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.177 dated 05.06.2024, registered under Sections 379-B, 392, 120-B, 201 IPC and 25 of Arms Act at

Police Station IMT, Rohtak, District Rohtak.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 7 months. He alleges false implication. There is no CCTV footage of the place of incident. No test identification parade was conducted. Out of 12 prosecution witnesses, only 5 including the complainant have been examined, who did not identify the petitioner. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State

of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 06.01.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1

year, 6 months and 25 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage and the petitioner being on bail in another case.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 6 months and 25 days; on bail in another case; complainant stands examined, however, 7 more prosecution witnesses still remain, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed