IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

245 CRM-M-64379-2025 Decided on : 22.12.2025 Manish ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Anoop Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***

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 to the petitioner in case FIR No.68 dated 31.03.2025, registered under Sections 127(2), 309(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 125(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused wrongfully confined the complainant, robbed him on gun point, threatened to shoot him and fled away. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. He further contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. Learned counsel further contends that even otherwise, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. He contends that co-accused Krishna and Ajay have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court vide orders dated 26.05.2025 and 03.06.2025 respectively. Learned counsel further contends that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the said offence. The petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2025. Nothing is to be recovered from him. The investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Learned counsel further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which is taken on record. Status report has already been filed. He has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel further contends that the petitioner has played pivotal role in the offence and also got recovered Rs.3000/- alongwith country made pistol and thus, does not deserve any concession from this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is also involved in one other case of similar nature meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, particularly the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 12 days, co-accused Krishna and Ajay have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court, investigation is complete, challan stands presented, charges have been framed; out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the fact that the trial may take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His further 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. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more