Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaljit @ Gola vs State Of Punjab on 27 November, 2025
Prayer in the present
nt petition filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.
No.38 dated
14.02.2023, registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga,
under Section 302 IPC (Sections 120-B
120 B IPC and Section 27 NDPS Act
Act,
1985 added later on).
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for 2 years, 9 months and 4 days. He alleges false implication.
His name surfaced on the disclosure statement of co
co-accused Rohit
Sharma, against whom there are allegations of having administered
poisonous substance to his wife-Monika.
wife Monika. Neither any role nor any motive
has been attributed to the petitioner, but for the allegations of having
provided the same to the aforesaid co-accused.
co accused. Charges have been framed
PARVEEN KUMAR
2025.11.27 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
on 15.07.2023, material witnesses, including the complainant, stand
examined out of 17. He is involved in 3 more cases under the NDPS Act
wherein 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 24.11.2025, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 2 years, 9 months and 4 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
poisonous substance administered by the co-accused to his wife was
supplied to the petitioner and he is a habitual offender. However, he is
unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case 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 is in custody for the last 2 years, 9 months
and 4 days; on bail in other cases; the material witnesses though have
been examined, however there are still 5 more to go; 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.
