[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mandeep Alias Lafander vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2026

                                                                             1

CRM-
CRM-M-25630-
      25630-2025




222
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                             CRM-
                             CRM-M-25630-
                                   25630-2025

Mandeep alias Lafander
                                                                   Petitioner
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                      versus

State of Haryana
                                                               ....Respondent

Date of decision: January 19,
                          19, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 19,
                            19, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. V.B. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

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

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') (Old Section

439 of Cr. P.C.), P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner petitioner, in case bearing

FIR No.35 dated 17.02.2024, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') 'IPC'),,

registered at Police Station Dujana, District Jhajjar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the

complainant, namely, Amardeep, son of Ramkaran Ramkaran, a resident of Village

Mehrana,, informed the police that on 17.02.2024 17.02.2024, at about 7:50 A.M.,, he

was on his way to his field in Village Manjhar Manjhar.. When he reached near the

water pond on the canal track, he noticed a dead body lying near the canal,

bearing bloodstains and visible injuries.

                                inj       He immediately dialed 112 and



                                   1 of 5



CRM-
CRM-M-25630-
      25630-2025

informed the police that an unknown person appeared to have been

murdered by some unidentified individual. During the course of

investigation, on 17.02.2024, the dead body was identified by Kewal Singh

as that of his father, Ramesh Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 20.02.2024. Learned counsel has further iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has iterated that prime prosecution evidence available, against the

petitioner, along with challan/ charge-sheet, is a CCTV footage in which the

petitioner is seen accompanying the deceased, and his own disclosure.

Learned counsel has further argued that the trial is procrastinating and folly

thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that

main witness, namely, PW-Kewal Singh (father of the deceased) is not

repeatedly turning up to have his testimony recorded inspite of issuance of

bailable and non-bailable warrants issued against him. Learned counsel has

iterated that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Learned counsel

has further iterated that the petitioner is in custody for more than 1½ years.

Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that there are direct/ serious allegations against the petitioner and,

thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

16.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

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

the available records of the case.

2 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-25630- 25630-2025

6. The petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2024, whereinafter, the

investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on

23.07.2024. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which,

07 have been examined and 01 has been given up till date.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of

Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues,

which 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.

3 of 5

CRM-

CRM-M-25630- 25630-2025

6.2. As per custody certificate dated 16.01.2026 filed by learned

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

of 01 year, 10 months and 26 days, & is not shown to be involved in other

FIR(s).

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 CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/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.