SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 26531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN ALIAS MUNSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-35755-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(217) CRM-M-35755-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 30.01.2026

AMAN @ MUNSHI

... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

**** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)

for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.450 dated 31.10.2023

registered under Section 395 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police

Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written

complaint submitted by the complainant-Manjeet on 31.10.2023 alleging that on

the same day he alongwith his cousin brother i.e. Deepu, was present in his

fields and both of them were proceeding to go back towards their houses on their

respective motorbikes, when 06 youths unknown to them reached there and

intercepted them. Two of them pointed pistols on the ear lobes of the petitioner

and his cousin brother asked them to hand over the keys of their motor bikes,

AMIT SHARMA

2026.01.30 14:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-35755-2025 (O&M) 2

otherwise they would be killed. Out of fear, the complainant and his cousin

brother handed over the keys of their vehicles to them and then all of them fled

away. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The

looted motorcycles were found lying abandoned in the area of Daulatpur,

District Hisar on 02.11.2023 and were taken into custody. During the course of

investigation, the petitioner who was arrested in some other case suffered a

disclosure statement admitting his involvement in this case and on the basis of

the same, he was joined into investigation of this case and was arrested on

28.05.2025. He was interrogated again and suffered disclosure statement

admitting the fact that he alongwith the co-accused had looted the motorcycles

from the complainant and his cousin brother. The names of other co-accused

were also disclosed. Test Identification Parade of the petitioner was got

conducted in the presence of the victim and he was duly identified by them. The

co-accused were subsequently arrested. Investigation now stands completed and

the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for commission of

aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has

been effected from him. The disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him is

not legally admissible in evidence and hence cannot be taken into consideration

especially in view of the fact that no distinct or new fact has been disclosed in

pursuance thereof. The trial will take considerable time to conclude since only

03 out of 31 witnesses have been examined so far. His involvement in other

AMIT SHARMA

2026.01.30 14:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-35755-2025 (O&M) 3

cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It

is, thus, urged that he deserve to be released on bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-

State. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations against the

petitioner are serious in nature as he was duly identified by the victims during

test identification parade. He is a man of criminal antecedents since as many as

09 cases have been registered against him and which are serious in nature.

There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the witnesses committing similar

offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that

the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by counsel for

both the parties.

6. The petitioner alongwith the co-a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top