IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 08.01.2026 Prince Sabharwal …..…...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ….…...Respondent (212) CRM-M-24117-2025 Sajan Kumar @ Sajan @ Ghanna ........Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-24117-2025.

Mr. Edward George Masih, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-10491-2025.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

1. Since both the aforementioned regular bail petitions have arisen from the same FIR, therefore, are being decided by common order.

2. By way of the present petition, both the petitioners are seeking regular bail in case FIR No.157 dated 19.11.2021, under Sections 302/396 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, (Sections 212/216/450/397/398 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur.

3. Reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division City Batala, District Batala, on behalf of respondent-State has been filed by learned State counsel in CRM-M-10491 of 2025. Custody certificates in CRM-M-24117 of 2025 and CRM-M-10491-2025 have been filed in Court today which are taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the co-accused namely, Rohit Masih and Anmol @ Chand are released on bail and case of the petitioner in CRM-M-10491-2025, who is in custody since 21.11.2021 i.e for the last four years is on the same footings, therefore, petitioners are entitled for grant of regular bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail petitions by submitting that five prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined in this case and the next date of hearing before the learned trial Court is 10.02.2026; petitioners are not having clear and clean antecedents and are involved in other cases also.

6. Heard.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner in CRM-M-10491-2025 is in custody for the last more than four years, both the petitions stand disposed off with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the conclusion of trial preferably within a period of 3 months from the next date of hearing fixed before it. If the trial Court fails to conclude the trial within the stipulated period, then the petitioners would be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking grant of bail before the Trial Court. Upon such applications being filed, the Trial Court shall release the petitioners on bail subject to their furnishing requisite bonds to its satisfaction by imposing such condition that their presence can be secured during the trial as the petitioner in CRM-M-10491-2025 is in custody since the last more than four years. It is made clear that if the delay h in the trial is caused on the part of the petitioners/accused, then t ey shall not be entitled for the aforesaid relief.

8. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected petition.

08.01.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA)

mamta JUDGE