Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil @ Lalu @ Teju vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2025
CRM-M-62030-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223
CRM-M-62030-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.11.2025
Sahil @ Lalu @ Teju
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, 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.694 dated 15.10.2020,
registered under Sections 457 and 380 IPC (Sections 411, 413, 201 and 120-B IPC
has been added during investigation) at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was initially granted bail
by the trial Court on 31.05.2021 after being in custody for more than 10 months,
thereafter, he continued to appear but for 16.12.2024, when he was arrested in
another FIR and now has been in custody from 07.02.2025. The alleged recovery
effected from him is 40 grams of gold and 2 kg of silver. Charges have been
framed on 24.08.2023, however, out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 14 have
been examined. 8 more cases are pending against the petitioner, wherein he is on
1 of 4
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. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner of having committed theft and recovery
stands effected from him. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to custody, stage of the trial 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." 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 has remained in custody for 1 year and about 1 month; on bail in
other cases; charges were framed wayback on 24.08.2023, however, 13 more
prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, the trial is likely to take a
considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his
2 of 4
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.
3 of 4
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
11.11.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
