IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 CRM-M-46046-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2025 Manish ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana Mr. Neeraj Saini, Advocate for the complainant *****

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.207 dated 17.05.2019, registered under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 6 years. Similar circumstanced co-accused namely Deepak had been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2024, Annexure P-8, after being in custody for 4 years, 10 months and 2 days. Co-accused Jaivir Singh @ Jaila, who had the motive as he was having a dispute with the deceased with regard to the ownership of a plot, has also been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023, Annexure P-7, after being in custody for 3 years and about 9 months. Charges have been framed on 15.09.2021, however, out of 36 prosecution witnesses, 16 (including all material witnesses) have been examined. In most of the cases registered against the petitioner, he is either on bail or has undergone the sentence, except in FIR No.551 of 2019. The aforesaid co-accused were also involved in other cases, which were taken note in the orders granting them 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. Status report along with custody certificate dated 28.10.2025 and 30.10.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5 years, 11 months and 25 days.

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having fired at the deceased along with Deepak and Anil @ Leela (since deceased) and recovery of weapon stands effected from all of them. However, learned State counsel is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being on bail in all cases except 1.

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.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 years, 11 months and 25 days; on bail in some cases; co-accused are on bail; charges stand framed wayback on 15.09.2021, however, 20 prosecution witnesses still remain and all material witnesses have been examined, 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