[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-17014-2026
205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17014-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
Vishal ....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
CRM-13568-2026
Allowed as prayed for.
Main cases
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.146 dated 27.11.2015, under Sections
395, 397 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Raipur Rani, District Panchkula.
2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged on the
statement of complainant, namely, Aashu Chand. It was alleged that he
was working as a salesman at Tirupati Petrol Pump Village Jaspur. It was
alleged that on 26.11.2015 at about 8:45 p.m., the complainant and Gaurav
Sharma were on duty. While they were sitting in the office, all of a
sudden, 7-8 men entered the office and another man stood outside. The
miscreants snatched their mobile phones and threatened to kill them if
they did not hand over cash to them, whereupon three of them were armed
with revolvers and the remaining were armed with dandas. It was alleged
that out of them two men wielded revolver like weapon at them and the
CRM-M-17014-2026
remaining accused opened the cash counter and took away all the cash
lying therein alongwith one bag lying on the table wherein some
documents of the petrol pump were kept, the miscreants allegedly pushed
them away and went out of the office. It was alleged that three of the
miscreants fled away on the bike of Gaurav Sharma whereas the others
ran towards Mouli. It was alleged that thereafter the complainant called
Tajinder, owner of the petrol pump and informed him about the
occurrence. Thus, the request was made to take the legal action against the
culprits. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. On completion
of investigation, challan was presented. On framing of charges, the trial
commenced. Petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2024. The petitioner
approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, praying for
grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after
hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court vide order dated 20.11.2025.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way
of filing of present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She
submits that initially the petitioner was arrested on 04.01.2015 and
thereafter, he was granted the concession of regular bail on 05.09.2016,
however, as he remained absent, his bail was cancelled and thereafter, he
surrendered on 14.09.2021. She submits that he was granted bail again on
17.11.2021 and due to his non-appearance, his bail was again cancelled on
16.09.2022. She submits that the petitioner is behind bars from last more
than 02 years. She submits that rest of the co-accused are on bail. She
submits that there is no material progress in the trial and thus, his right of
speedy trial is miserably defeated. She submits that though the petitioner
CRM-M-17014-2026
is involved in other cases, however, in some of the cases, he is on bail and
in some of the cases he has been acquitted. She thus, submits that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted
bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner is a habitual offender who is involved in other cases as well. He
submits that the petitioner has been convicted in some of the cases and in
the present case he has misused the concession of bail twice. He, on
instructions, has submitted that out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only
04 witnesses have been examined so far. He has produced the custody
certificate of the petitioner on record.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is deciphered that in the present, the petitioner was initially arrested on
04.01.2015 and thereafter, he was granted bail. However, as he remained
absent, thus, his bail was cancelled time and again. After cancellation of
bail on 16.09.2022, he was arrested on 09.10.2024 and since then the
petitioner is behind bars. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has
suffered an incarceration of 02 years, 04 months and 17 days as on
23.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 13 more
cases as well, however, in 06 of the cases he is on bail and in 04 cases, he
has already undergone the sentence and in 03 cases, has been acquitted.
Out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been
examined till date. Needless to say that speedy trial is the fundamental
right of every accused.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
CRM-M-17014-2026
both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel
for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar
Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem
Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC
695 has held as under:
"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While
deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be
avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be
unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part
of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public
confidence in the administration of justice."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated
03.07.2024 in 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024', has held that howsoever serious a
crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the
Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said
herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
POOJA SHARMA Whether reportable : Yes/No
