[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alok vs State Of Haryana on 8 December, 2025
CRM-M-67947-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
232 CRM-M-67947-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.12.2025
Alok
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, 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.173 dated 23.10.2024,
registered under Sections 127(2), 140(2), 3(5), 308(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338,
340(2), 61(2) of BNS (Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS
added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, District Gurugram.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody
for 1 year and more than 1 month. He alleges false implication. His name was
surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Rishipal. Charges
have been framed on 05.08.2025 and all material witnesses have been examined
in November, 2025, who have not supported the version of the prosecution
including PW3-son of the complainant, who was alleged to be abducted, while
there are 20 more to go. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case, 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 05.12.2025, filed by the learned State
1 of 3
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1
year, 1 month and 9 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by his co-accused of
abduction and demanding money for ransom. However, he is unable to
controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case.
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 1 year, 1 month and 9 days; charges
were framed on 05.08.2025, material witnesses stand examined but 20 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 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
2 of 3
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 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
3 of 3
