Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit vs State Of Haryana on 13 November, 2025
CRM-M-62489-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRM-M-62489-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2025
Amit
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Amit Choudhary, 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.444 dated 07.06.2025,
registered under Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132 and 221 BNS and 25(1-B)(a) of
Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Hissar, District Hissar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for
more than 5 months. He alleges false implication. As per the allegations, he was
driving the vehicle wherein co-accused Ram Chander @ Ved Parkash @ Bedi was
travelling, who has since been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
06.11.2025 after being in custody of 5 months while co-accused Aryan and Rahul
are stated to have fired at the police party, however, he refers to their MLR
showing bullet injuries received by them on their calf. Challan was presented on
02.08.2025, however, charges have not been framed. In all there are 25
prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is involved in 2 more cases under Section
323 IPC, in 1 of which, he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by
1 of 4
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 12.11.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5
months and 5 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner had actively participated in the commission of offence in connivance
with co-accused and 3 live cartridges have been recovered from him. However, he
is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having
been granted bail and the petitioner being on bail in one 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 5 months and 5 days; on bail in 1 case; co-
accused is on bail; challan stands presented on 02.08.2025, however, charges are
yet to be framed; there are a total of 25 prosecution witnesses, 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.
2 of 4
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
3 of 4
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
13.11.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
