IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [211] CRM-M-89-2024 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 KRISHAN KUMAR ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, and Mr. R.S. Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

****

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 19 dated 17.01.2019 under Sections 302, 392, 120-B, 216, 148, 149 and 420 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Tarori, Karnal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner alongwith his co- accused had fired gun shots upon the deceased-Vikas @ Pintu. It is further argued that the weapon used by the petitioner is not connected to the occurrence through FSL evidence. Moreover, the petitioner has undergone a period of 04 years, 05 months and 17 days as under trial. Although, he is involved in many cases, however, in this case, his custody is nearly four and half years and out of 60 witnesses only 05 have so far been examined. It is also pleaded that many of the co-accused have already been released on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. He further submits that many of the co-accused have already been granted bail.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 years 05 months and 17 days. On asking, he further submits that out of 60 cited prosecution witnesses only 05 witnesses have been examined so far.

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

6. Keeping in view the above and the fact that only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far; the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 years 05 months and 17 days; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, 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 applicant/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)

11.09.2025 JUDGE Anjal