[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Aalam vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-12326-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.205
CRM-M-12326-2026
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
MOHAMMAD AALAM ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Kunal Jindia, Mr. Vicky Sharma and
Mr. Gauri Swarup Bansal, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. This is the second petition under Section 483 of BNSS read
with Section 528 of BNSS for the grant of concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.313, dated 29.08.2018, under Sections 302, 201,
34, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police
Station Chandhut, District Palwal.
2. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that
he is involved in the commission of murder. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court, while deciding the first bail application of the petitioner vide order
dated 19.08.2025, had considered the entire material on record in detail and
declined the concession of bail. While doing so, it was specifically observed
that there was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with
the alleged offence of murder and that the gravity of the offence did not
justify grant of bail. The Court had also taken into account the custody
period of the petitioner and the stage of trial, and after due consideration,
found no ground to extend the benefit of regular bail. However, a limited
liberty was granted in para No. 10 of the said order to the effect that in case
the trial does not conclude within eight years of the petitioner's custody and
the delay is not attributable to the petitioner, he may apply for bail before the
trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no
specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by the complainant. It is
further contended that the petitioner has been in custody for more than seven
and a half years, and no recovery of any weapon has been effected from him.
It is also submitted that out of the total 32 prosecution witnesses, only 9
have been examined so far, and therefore the trial is likely to take
considerable time. On parity, it is pointed out that similarly placed co-
accused, namely Praveen and Pranav Kumar @ P.K., have already been
granted the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
petitioner is also entitled to be released on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed custody
certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He
submits that the condition laid down by the Coordinate Bench in its earlier
order dated 19.08.2025 has not been satisfied, as the petitioner has not yet
completed eight years of custody.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case file, this Court observes that in the present case, the
custody period of the petitioner is approximately 6 years, 6 months and 27
days and out of 28 prosecution witnesses, 13 witnesses have been examined
so far. Thus, the condition stipulated by the Coordinate Bench in its earlier
order dated 19.08.2025 has not yet been fulfilled, inasmuch as the period of
eight years of custody has not elapsed. Moreover, no material has been
brought on record to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances so
as to warrant a different view from the one already taken by the Coordinate
Bench.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground to
grant the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Consequently, the
present petition is dismissed.
7. However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
