[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 December, 2025
CRM-M-68004-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
234
CRM-M-68004-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.12.2025
Sukhvinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, 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.96 dated 17.04.2025,
registered under Sections 308(6), 140(1), 127(2), 126 and 115 of BNS at Police
Station CIty Narwana, District Jind, in which the police has presented the Final
report under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 308(6), 351(2) and
61(2) of BNS.
2. Learned Senior counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for more than 7 months. As per the allegations, he and others had taken
the complainant Anoop Singh to the Bank as also to the commission agent for
taking ransom. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR. No recovery was
effected from per se of the petitioner. Charges have been framed on 25.08.2025,
however, out of 22 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. The
petitioner is involved in 2 more cases under Section 323 IPC and Arms Act,
1 of 4
wherein he is on 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. The custody certificate dated 07.12.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 7
months and 19 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner of abducting the complainant for
ransom. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage
and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.
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."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioner is in custody for the last 7 months and 19 days; on bail in other
cases; charges were framed on 25.08.2025, however, out of 22 prosecution
witnesses none has yet 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.
2 of 4
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) 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 shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, he is an accused, or for
commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his
liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile
number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not
change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any
reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it
shall be done only with prior information to the learned
trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
3 of 4
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.12.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
