Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshad vs State Of Haryana on 10 November, 2025
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.
No.209 dated
06.06.2020, registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, under
Sections 332, 353, 427, 307, 483 and 34 IPC.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for about 4 months,, having been produced through production
warrant on 14.07.2025. He was not named in the FIR, however, it is on
the disclosure statement of co-accused,
co accused, Sahjan @ Fajjan, that his name
surfaced, who has since been granted bail by this Court on 18.02.2021,
Annexure
nnexure P-3.
P
PARVEEN KUMAR
2025.11.10 19:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
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 08.11.2025, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 3 month and 23 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner has been specifically named by the co-accused of having
attacked the PCR, alongwith his accomplices. However, he is unable to
controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner
being on bail in other case and the co-accused having been released 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." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State
of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The
offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several
criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves
cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 months and 23
days; on bail in other cases; co-accused on bail; challan stands presented
on 24.07.2025,charges are yet to be framed, there are total of 13 PWs; the
trial is likely to take a considerable time and 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.
