[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nikhil vs State Of Haryana on 28 November, 2025
CRM-M-63106-2025 (O&M) -1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-63106-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28th November, 2025
Nikhil
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Satyawan Singh Nain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail pending
trial to the petitioner in case FIR No. 22 dated 29.01.2024 registered under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of
Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sector 37, Gurugram.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner
along with co-accused committed murder of one Akash. Hence the present
FIR.
1 of 5
CRM-M-63106-2025 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that
neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor any specific role has been
attributed to him, rather he has been named on the disclosure statement of the
co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to
connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that
disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is
not admissible. He further submits that during the test identification parade
and in their deposition before the learned trial Court, the complainant as well
the alleged eye-witnesses failed to identify the petitioner. He also argues that
the complainant/eye witnesses along with material witnesses have turned
hostile. To lend force to his contention, he has drawn the attention of this
Court to the statement of PW- 1 to PW-7 (Annexure P-2 to P-8) made before
the trial Court, wherein none of them have supported the case of the
prosecution and failed to identify the petitioner as the assailant. He further
submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2024. The investigation
in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been
framed. He further submits that there are total 35 prosecution witnesses and
out of which, only 08 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will
take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to
be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. She has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed
2 of 5
CRM-M-63106-2025 (O&M) -3-
by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the
petitioner has got recovered the knife used in the commission of crime and
the FSL report, prima facie shows his involvement in the alleged crime. She
further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning
thereby, he is a habitual offender. However, she has not controverted the fact
that the complainant as well as the eye witnesses including the material
witnesses have turned hostile.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for last more than 01 year 08 months; investigation is complete; challan
stands presented; charges framed; complainant/eye-witnesses and other
material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution before the
trial Court; out of 35 witnesses, only 08 have been examined till date and the
trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by
detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the
prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of
his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi
Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State
of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.,
(1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 10
SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh Vs.
3 of 5
CRM-M-63106-2025 (O&M) -4-
State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC
752.
7. More recently, in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an
indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as
enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the
principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".
8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another
case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-
below:-
"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."
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to
4 of 5
CRM-M-63106-2025 (O&M) -5-
the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It
is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
JUDGE
28th November, 2025
Sima
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
