[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2025
CRM-M-70720-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 CRM-M-70720-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.12.2025
Manjit Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.303 dated 08.11.2023,
registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B, 409, 477-A IPC, at
Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for
last 5 months. Co-accused Mahaveer and Ram Singh have already been granted
bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.11.2025 and 11.12.2025, respectively. The
offences are triable by Magistrate. Challan has been presented on 10.10.2025,
charges have been framed on 03.11.2025 and out of 19 PWs, only 2 have been
examined. He is involved in two more cases, in one of which, 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 18.12.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5
months.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner of having changed the page of
conveyance deed in the office of Tehsildar. However, he is unable to controvert
the submissions with regard to stage, petitioner being on bail in one case and co-
accused having been enlarged on bail.
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 5 months; on bail in one case; co-accused are on
bail; it is a case of magisterial trial; charges were framed on 03.11.2025 and only
2, out of 19 PWs, have 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.
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
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)
19.12.2025 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
