[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Mehra vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2026
Prayer in the present
nt petition filed under Section 483 BNSS
BNSS,
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.
No.173 dated
25.06.2020, registered under Sections 302, 115, 216-A, 396, 34 and 212
IPC, at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for the last 5 years and about 5 months. He alleges false
implication. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co
co-
accused, namely, Gurmeet Singh and Rajan, who have since been granted
bail, vide orders dated 16.05.2024 and 19.11.2024, Annexures P
P-5 and P-
6,, besides co-accused
co accused Rohit alias Dheela and Aashish Dahiya alias Ashish
on 13.10.025 and 31.10.2025.
31 No specific injury has been attributed to
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.01.20 19:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
the petitioner. Charges have been framed on 16.09.2021, 21 PWs,
including the material witnesses, stand examined but there are still 23
more to go. He is involved in 3 more cases wherein he is on bail.
Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court
titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,
2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 19.01.2026, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 5 years, 4 months and 23 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that
there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by the co-
accused and a danda stands recovered from him. However, he is unable to
controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner
being on bail in other cases and the co-accused having been released on
bail.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 years, 4 months
and 23 days; on bail in other cases; the co-accused are on bail; charges
stand framed on 16.09.2021, however, 21 PWs, including the material
witnesses have been examined out of 44; the trial is likely to take a
considerable time and further incarceration of the petitioner would be
violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the present petition is allowed.
8. The petitioner is 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 petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial
Court and not change the same till conclusion of
trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change
either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with
prior information to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner 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 petitioner.
9. 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 petitioner by this order.
10. 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.
