[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Alias Lalu vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-1668-2026 -1-
CRM-M-6741-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 Date of decision: 21.04.2026
1. CRM-M-1668-2026
RAHUL ALIAS LALU V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
2. CRM-M-6741-2026
KARAN V/S STATE OF PUNJAB
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. BBS Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-1668-2026.
Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-6741-2026.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. The present petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 for grant
of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.199 dated 17.08.2025, registered
under Sections 109, 332(c), 61(2), 3(5) BNS and Sections 25-54-59 and 27 of the
Arms Act, at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur.
2. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioners have been in
custody for about 7 months. The allegations, as made by the complainant in the
supplementary statement against the petitioners to have fired shot, were found to
be false as is apparent from para 4 of preliminary submissions of status report
dated 22.02.2026 as it was co-accused Vishal and Aniket Masih who had opened
fire at complainant Sandeep Kumar, consequent whereto, he had received wrist
injury and hospitalized for 2 days. The recovery of motorcycle and the pistol was
effected from the former. As a matter of fact, co-accused Harsh Kumar was
granted anticipatory bail against whom the allegations were of having paid
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners to conduct recce. Challan has been presented on
03.12.2025, charges have been framed on 29.01.2026 and none, out of 22 PWs,
has been examined. They are not involved in any other case.
CRM-M-6741-2026
3. The custody certificates dated 20.04.2026 filed by the learned State
counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners-Rahul and Karan are
behind bars for 6 months, 19 days and 6 months, 28 days, respectively.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that that the
petitioner had actively participated in the commission of offence being in
conspiracy with the other co-accused as also connected to Karanvir Singh and
Harsh Kumar, living in USA. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to custody, stage, petitioners being not involved in any other case and
co-accused having been enlarged on bail.
5. Heard.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, in particular
that the petitioners are in custody for last 6 months, 19 days and 6 months, 28
days, respectively; not involved in any other case; co-accused is on bail; charges
were framed on 29.01.2026 and out of 22 PWs, none has yet been examined, the
trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioners
would be violative of their right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the present petitions are allowed.
7. The petitioners are 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 petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on each
and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific
order of Court.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, they are an accused, or for
commission of which they are suspected of.
(v) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not in any manner misuse their
liberty.
(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their addresses and mobile
numbers by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not
CRM-M-6741-2026
change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any
reasons, they seek to change either of the aforesaid, it
shall be done only with prior information to the learned
trial Court.
(viii) The petitioners 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
petitioners.
8. 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 petitioners by this order.
9. 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.
10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
21.04.2026 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
