Ishu vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 518 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ishu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 January, 2026

 CRM-M-70926-2025 (O&M)               1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
226
                                                       CRM-M-70926-2025 (O&M)
                                                       Date of decision: 21.01.2026
Ishu
                                                                        ....Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Haryana
                                                                      ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                  *****
Present : Mr. V. B. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner
          Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana
                                 *****
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.171 dated 15.04.2020,

registered under Sections 188, 302, 397, 506/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms

Act, at Police Station Azad Nagar, District Hisar.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 5

years, 09 months and 5 days. He is alleged to have given knife blow and co-

accused Deepak @ Halwai, who was also attributed iron rod blow to the deceased,

has been granted bail after being in custody for 3 years and 3 months by this Court

vide order dated 25.07.2023, Annexue P-4, who was also involved in other cases.

Besides him, two co-accused Suraj @ Bachi and Ajay @ Malai have been granted

bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.04.2023 and 04.07.2023 and co-accused

Ajay @ Malai was assigned a similar role. Out of 18 prosecution witnesses, 10

have been examined, including the complainant. He is involved in 04 more other

cases and are for offences under Sections 323, 380 IPC and Prisoners Act etc.,

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.

1 of 3

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 5

years, 09 months and 5 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there were

specific allegations against the petitioner having inflicted injury to the deceased.

However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the

trial; co-accused enlarged on bail and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

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 5 years, 09 months and 5 days; co-accused are on

bail; is on bail in other case; out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 10 have been

examined, 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.

2 of 3

(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
dinesh     Whether speaking/reasoned                  :      Yes / No
           Whether reportable                         :      Yes / No




                                      3 of 3