[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manish vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 2026

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH




                 227
                                                                              CRM-M-16594-2026
                                                                           Date of decision: 02.04.2026
                                                                        Date of uploading: 02.04.2026


                 Manish
                                                                                                ....Petitioner
                                                            versus
                 State of Haryana
                                                                                              ....Respondent

                 CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                 Present:-        Mr. Prashant Lather, Advocates
                                  for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

                                                            *****
                 SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant

of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.357 dated 01.07.2021

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379-B, 397 of IPC

(Sections 103, 304 and 311 respectively in BNS) and Sections 25 & 27 of the

Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Shivaji Colony, District Rohtak.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the

petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:-

"To: The SHO, Shivaji Colony Police Station, Rohtak. Respected Sir/Madam, I, Poonam-wife of Saurabh and a native of Phulapur (District Mainpuri, UP), currently residing in Mukhija Colony, Panipat- hereby submit the following petition. I had traveled to Phulapur, UP, to attend the wedding of my brother-in-law, Santosh. Yesterday, on the evening of June 30, 2021, at approximately 8:30 PM, I spoke with my husband, Saurabh, over the phone. I informed him that I had departed from Sirsaganj-along with my two daughters, Neshi and Khushboo-and requested that he come to the Rohtak Bypass to pick us up at around 3:00 AM. Subsequently, at approximately 3:00 AM, having traveled via

CRM-M-16594-2026

Sirsaganj, Palwal, Farrukhnagar, and Jhajjar, I disembarked at the Rohtak Bypass near Jalebi Chowk, adjacent to the ESSAR petrol pump on Jhajjar Road. I then attempted to call my husband, Saurabh, but I could hear his phone ringing somewhere nearby. Upon looking around, I discovered Saurabh lying on the ground near the road by the petrol pump. Upon closer inspection, I observed that Saurabh had sustained a gunshot wound to his back, near the neck, and blood was flowing from his mouth; he lay dead on the ground. My husband had come from Rohtak to pick us up in a friend's car; however, certain unidentified individuals shot and murdered him, dumped his body on the road, looted the vehicle, and fled the scene. I request that appropriate legal action be

initiated against these unidentified individuals."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2021. Learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into

the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further

submitted that all the private prosecution witnesses stand examined and thus,

there is no chance of the petitioner interfering with the prosecution evidence.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that there is

no tangible prosecution evidence available on record so as to warrant the

petitioner Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further iterated

that the petitioner has suffered incarceration as an undertrial for more than 4

years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing

that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus,

he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel

seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 01.04.2026 in Court, which is

taken on record.

CRM-M-16594-2026

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2021 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 17.11.2021. Total

29 prosecution witnesses have been cited and 28 stand examined till date. The

very premise for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly

attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with

the prosecution witnesses, a common ground for denial of bail, is rendered

largely moot in such circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes

'Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex'- when the reason for the law ceases,

the law itself ceases-duly encapsulates within its ambit, the factual milieu of

the instant case. The primary rationale for pre-trial detention, securing the

integrity of the prosecution's case and ensuring the accused's presence at

trial, is substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the

prosecution is virtually complete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of

criminal jurisprudence that the right to a fair trial is paramount, an

indispensable facet of which is the accused's opportunity to present a robust

defense. Although the right to lead defence by an accused is regulated by

Section 233 of Cr.P.C, nonetheless, it is one of the most valuable rights. A

criminal trial is not a one-sided affair, it embodies the adversarial system

where both the prosecution and the defense must be afforded an equal, if not

greater, opportunity to substantiate their respective cases. To effectively

exercise this inalienable right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty

of the accused is often an essential factor. A person confined to custody

faces considerable impediments in consulting with legal counsel, gathering

CRM-M-16594-2026

defense witnesses, and preparing their strategy. Denial of liberty at this

advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost

complete, can severely cripple the defense, thereby striking at the very root

of a fair trial. Audi alteram partem -hear the other side- is a fundamental

dictate of natural justice, and denying bail when there's no palpable risk of

witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory. At this juncture,

it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 'Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others versus Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh', 1978 AIR (SC) 429, relevant

part thereof reads as under:

"11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted."

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues

shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not

deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage,

lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to

indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of

justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 01.04.2026 filed by the learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of

04 years, 6 months and 23 days & is shown to be involved in multiple other

FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline

the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a

CRM-M-16594-2026

case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by

ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this

regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR

(Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High

Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 &

judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh

v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of

Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is

not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.