[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Alias Dhodu vs State Of Haryana on 21 January, 2026
CRM-M-1912-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239
CRM-M-1912-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.01.2026
Manjit alias Dhodu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana
Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate for the complainant
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.266 dated 16.07.2022,
registered under Sections 302, 307, 436, 506, 427, 34 IPC at Police Station
Sadar Mahendergarh, Haryana.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for 3 years and more than 5 months. The complainant has not supported
the version of the prosecution as also the deceased passed away after
2 months but neither any statement before the Magistrate was got recorded
nor even opinion of his fitness was taken from the doctor. Thus, he alleges
false implication. 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined including
all material, out of 26. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case, 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 20.01.2026, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3
years, 5 months and 4 days.
4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant
oppose the bail on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the
commission of offence. However, learned State counsel is unable to controvert
the submissions with regard to stage and the petitioner being on bail in another
case.
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 3 years, 5 months and 4 days; on bail
in another case; material witnesses stand examined and 12 still remaining, the
trial is likely to take a considerable time, 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.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
21.01.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
