IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69622-2025 Date of decision: 05.02.2026 SHIVAM ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Satyawan Singh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail pending trial to the petitioner in case FIR No.22 dated 29.01.2024 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sector 37, Gurugram.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused committed murder of one Akash. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him, rather he has been named on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further submits that during the test identification parade and in their deposition before the learned trial Court, the complainant as well the alleged eye-witnesses failed to identify the petitioner. He also argues that the complainant/eye witnesses along with material witnesses have turned hostile. To lend force to his contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW- 1 to PW-7 (Annexure P-2 to P-8) made before the trial Court, wherein none of them have supported the case of the prosecution and failed to identify the petitioner as the assailant. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2024. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He submits that co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025. He further submits that there are total 35 prosecution witnesses and out of which, only 08 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed. She has further submitted that the petitioner has got recovered the knife used in the commission of crime and the FSL report, prima facie shows his involvement in the alleged crime. However, she has not controverted the fact that the complainant as well as the eye witnesses including the material witnesses have turned hostile.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for last more than 02 years; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; complainant/eye-witnesses and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution before the trial Court; out of 35 witnesses, only 08 have been examined till date and the trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Co