IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 DINESH ALIAS FAUJI ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 197 dated 23.06.2020 under Sections 302,148,149,201,241,120-B IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Jind.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused have caused the death of one Sumit. The petitioner has been facing trial and is behind bars. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused. No recovery had been effected from the petitioner. He further submits that co-accused namely Shivam, Sachin @ Sanjeet and Navneen @ Babal, who are similarly situated, have already been granted concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-10083-2024, CRM-M-12395-2024 and CRM-M-24174-2024. He seeks parity.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 04 years 10 months and 08 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He fairly admits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2020. He further submits that out of 46 prosecution witnesses, 42 witnesses have been examined so far. It is also submitted that eye-witnesses in the present case have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. However, the ballistic firearm have been matched with the bullet recovered from the deceased.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for 04 years 10 months and 08 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8. It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL)

09.07.2025 JUDGE renu