IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 CRM-M-52274-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2026 Himanshu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana *****

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.461 dated 24.10.2022, registered under Sections 302 & 452 IPC (later Sections 392, 397, 411, 34 IPC & 25/27/29 of Arms Act) at Police Station Sonipat Sadar, District Sonipat.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, who is 23 years old, has been in custody for 3 years and more than 1 month. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Amit @ Monu. He has not been seen in the CCTV footage. Charges have been framed on 09.05.2023 and out of 45 prosecution witnesses, 22 have been examined including the material witnesses, who have not supported the prosecution version. The petitioner is involved in 7 more cases, wherein he is on bail, however, has not furnished the bail bonds, thus in custody. 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. The custody certificate dated 19.01.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 years, 1 month and 11 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having actively participated in the offence and the knife was recovered from him, which matched with the blood of the deceased. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage.

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 3 years, 1 month and 11 days; on bail in other cases; charges were framed on 09.05.2023, however, 23 more prosecution witnesses still remain, 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 (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:19) to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner