Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bintu Alias Mintu vs State Of Haryana on 19 November, 2025
CRM-M-56809-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215
CRM-M-56809-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.11.2025
Bintu alias Mintu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Vikram S. Lakhlan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana
Mr. Punam Singh, Advocate for the complainant
*****
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.119 dated 25.02.2022,
registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and 25(1b)(a) of
Arms Act at Police Station Pataudi, Gurugram.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 3
years and about 5 months. As per the allegations, he had supplied weapons to co-
accused, however, there were no call details between them. Further, there is no
allegations against him of participating in the alleged incident. Charges have been
framed on 26.09.2024, however, out of 89 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have
been examined. The petitioner is involved in 11 more cases and in most of them,
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,
1 of 4
2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 18.11.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3
years, 4 months and 25 days.
4. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the complainant
oppose the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the
petitioner of having supplied the arms which the co-accused had used in the
occurrence. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to
stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in most 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 is in custody for the last 3 years, 4 months and 25
days; charges were framed on 26.09.2024, however, 85 more prosecution
witnesses remain to the examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable
time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right
2 of 4
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
3 of 4
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
19.11.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
