[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aslam Khan Alias Anda Alias Ikhlak vs State Of Punjab on 28 November, 2025
CRM-M-65619
65619-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213 CRM-M-65619-2025 2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.11.2025
2025
Aslam Khan @ Anda @ Ikhlak ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr Sumit Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY,
CHAUDHARY J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed un
under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.
No.0218 dated 30.08.2023,
30.08.2023
registered under Section 379-B(2)
B(2) and 34 IPC (Section 411 and 473 IPC added
later on), att Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 2
years and about 3 months.
months He alleges false implication
implication. There is a delay of 5
months in lodging the FIR. As per the allegation, he is stated to have been caused
injuries to the complainant
complainant and his friend with iron rods
rods, which is similar to co-
co
accused Sandeep and Munish, who have since been granted bail. Challan has been
presented on 18.11.2023,
18.11.2023, charges have been framed on 13.03.2024 and only 2, out
of 23 PWs,, have been examined.
examined He is involved in five more cases of similar
nature. 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
others,, 2012(2)
SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 26.11.2025
.11.2025,, filed by the learned State
1 of 3
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2
years, 2 months & 22 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner of having actively participated in the
commission of offence. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with
regard to stage of the case and co-accused having been enlarged 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 2 years, 2 months & 22 days; co-accused are on
bail; Challan was presented on 18.11.2023, charges were framed on 13.03.2024
and out of 23 PWs, only 2 have been examined so far, 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.
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
2 of 3
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.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
28.11.2025 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
