[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Kumar vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 20 January, 2026
CRM-M-49949-2025 (O&M) 1
CRM-M-60910-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
CRM-M-49949-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.01.2026
Rocky Malik Alias Rocky
....Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
...Respondent
CRM-M-60910-2025 (O&M)
Manish Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Shubham Dogra and Mr. Vinay Yadav, Advocates
for the petitioners
Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T. Chandigarh and
Mr. Dixit Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. These cases are disposed of by this common order as they arise out
of the same FIR.
2. Prayer in the present petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.45 dated
24.03.2025, registered under Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and 61(2), 319(2),
338 BNS added later on at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh.
3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been in custody
for about 10 months. As per the allegations, one live cartridge was recovered
from petitioner-Rocky, while petitioner-Manish Kumar is stated to be go
between in the police officers and the co-accused Rocky and Gaurav. Co-
1 of 4
CRM-M-60910-2025 (O&M)
accused Jasminder Singh and Samunder have been granted bail by this Court
vide orders dated 21.08.2025 and 29.08.2025, Annexure P-3 and P-4
respectively. Supplementary challan was presented on 17.01.2026, however,
charges have not been framed and in all there are 32 witnesses. Petitioner-
Rocky is involved in 1 more case in U.P. while petitioner-Manish Kumar is
involved in 4 more cases including 1 under NDPS Act, wherein they are 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.
4. The custody certificates dated 19.01.2026, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind bars
for 9 months and 27/24 days respectively.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioners under the Arms Act
and being the mediator. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being on bail in other cases and
co-accused have been granted bail.
6. Heard.
7. 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."
Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC
2 of 4
CRM-M-60910-2025 (O&M)
648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious
and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors
by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioners are in custody for the last 9 months and 27/24 days
respectively; on bail in other cases; co-accused have been granted bail;
supplementary challan was presented on 17.01.2026, however, charges are yet
to be framed and in all there are 32 witnesses; the trial is likely to take a
considerable time and 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.
9. 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 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 her
liberty.
3 of 4
CRM-M-60910-2025 (O&M)
(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their address and mobile
number by way of affidavit/s to the trial Court and not
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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
20.01.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
