[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mustfa @ Mastu vs State Of Haryana on 8 December, 2025
CRM-M-59336 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
331 CRM-M-59336 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
Mustfa @ Mastu ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.189 dated 20.05.2025 registered under Sections
121(1), 132, 331(6), 310(2), 61(2) and 238(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar
Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on
the basis of complaint moved by the complainant-Ankit Kumar who alleged
that on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2025, 15 unknown persons with
muffled faces (including the petitioner), in conspiracy with each other and
armed with dangerous weapons, committed robbery by assaulting the
complainant-a public officer after criminally trespassing into the warehouse,
1 of 4
breaking the lock of the godown and looted 120 confiscated fertilizer bags.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with
the alleged incident. He further contends that the petitioner was neither
present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended
that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of
secret information. He further argued that no test identification parade was
conducted by the police in the present case and the petitioner has been
falsely roped up without any incriminating evidence. He further argued that
if the prosecution version is taken to be true, even then no specific role
has been attributed to the present petitioner. Further, nothing is to be
recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2025.
The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and
charges have also been framed. There are total 24 prosecution witnesses in
this case but none has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take
a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping
him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Learned State counsel already filed the status report in the
matter and while referring to the same, has vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is
serious in nature and he has actively participated in the crime. He argued
that during investigation, the petitioner has admitted his guilt and got
recovered the weapon of offence and offending vehicle along with
2 of 4
Rs.3,000/-, which itself shows the involvement of the petitioner in the crime.
He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other
cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 05 months; investigation is complete; challan stands
presented; charges framed; no prosecution witness has been examined till
date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial, and will take a long
time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him
in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial
being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is
held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
3 of 4
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
"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."
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
08.12.2025 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
