[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Uttam Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026

CRM-M--34639-2024                                                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

106-9                                              CRM-M-34639-2024


Uttam Singh
                                                           ....Petitioner
                                          V/s
State of Haryana
                                                           ....Respondent
Date of decision: 16.03.2026
Date of Uploading : 18.03.2026
                    1

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:      Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. No.451 451 dated

11.11.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 11.11.2023, Sections 120--B,

302, 328 of IPC and Section 72-A 72 A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana

Amendment Bill, 2020) and later on added Sections 201, 204, 420, 467,

468, 471 of IPC at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR reflects that the FIR in question has

been registered on the statement of Mukesh, who alleged that on

08.11.2023, his father namely Rishi Pal went to supply building material at

Village Harjoli Seller, Police Station Mullana, District Ambala and returned

att about 05:00 PM under the influence of liquor. The complainant further

alleged that on 09.11.2023, his father again went with his friend Raj

Mohammad for some work at Ambala and returned home at about 05:00

PM. On reaching home, his father had told the ffamily amily members that he had

1 of 10

consumed liquor from a vend at village Tangel, Police Station Mullana,

District Ambala and since then his health deteriorated and his vision was

hazy. On 10.11.2023, the health of the father of the complainant further

deteriorated and he had lost his eyesight whereinafter he was admitted to deteriorated

Civil Hospital, Trauma Centre, Yamuna Nagar Nagar. The complainant had

alleged that his father had died during the course of treatment on account of

consumption of spurious liquor on 08.11.2023 from the vend at village

Tangel. On the basis of the said statement, FIR in question was registered

and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, it

was revealed that one accused Mohit Rana alias Kala Rana used to supply

spurious liquor liquor in the area, who is presently confined at Central Jail,

Ambala in another FIR. On production warrant, the accused Mohit Rana

had joined the investigation and was arrested in the present case. He

suffered a disclosure statement that accused Ankit @ Mogli etc had

allegedly started manufacturing illicit liquor at village Dhanoura District

Ambala and sold the same in illegal manner to the vendors of liquor vend

situated at village Mandebri District Yamunanagar. He has further revealed

that the accused Vishal Kumar @ Laddi and his partner Sandeep @ Sonu

and other liquor vendors indulged in the illegal business of liquor.

Thereafter, several accused persons were arrested and their disclosure

statements were recorded pursuant to which the investigating ag agency ency

claimed to have unearthed a larger network allegedly involved in the

manufacture, supply and distribution of illicit and spurious liquor.

liquor

Consequently, offences under Sections 302, 328, 120 120-B B IPC and relevant

provisions of the Excise Act were invoked against the accused persons.

2 of 10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated into the

FIR in question at a later stage solely on the basis of disclosure statements

of co-accu accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that no recovery has

been effected from the petitioner and no material exists to establish his

involvement in the alleged conspiracy. It has been further contended that the

only allegation against the petitioner is that he has rented out his godown to

co-accused accused Kapil and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has ha

any knowledge of any illegal activity being carried out therein. Learned

counsel has emphasized that the evidentiary value of disclosure statements stateme

of co-accused accused is weak and inadmissible in law law. Furthermore, no recovery

whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner petitioner.. It has been further

contended that the entire prosecution case against the petitioner rests solely

upon custodial disclosure statements which by themselves cannot constitute

legally admissible evidence in view of the settled position of law. Learned

counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a

substantial period and the investigation qua him stands concluded.

Furthermore, the the challan and supplementary challan have already been

presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Learned counsel has

asserted that the prosecution has cited large number of witnesses and the

trial is likely to take considerable considerable time to conclude and hence the continued

incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore,

the petitioner shall undertake to abide by all conditions that may be imposed

by this Court, including not tampering with the pro prosecution secution evidence or

influencing witnesses and not leaving the country without prior permission

3 of 10

of the Court. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition

in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned earned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations are grave and

serious in nature as the case pertains to the manufacture and supply of

illicit/spurious liquor which ultimately resulted in the death of certain

persons. Learned State te counsel has iterated that during the course of

investigation a larger conspiracy involving several persons engaged in the investigation,

manufacture and distribution of poisonous liquor has been unearthed.

According to learned State counsel, during the course of inv investigation, it has

surfaced that the petitioner is the owner of the warehouse used for making

liquor and has knowingly let out his premises for establishment of an illicit

liquor manufacturing unit (Copy of the Rent Agreement is annexed as

Annexure P-4 P with the present petition). Furthermore, tthe petitioner has not

only executed a rent agreement but was also aware of the nature of activities

being carried out in the said premises. Learned State counsel has highlighted

that the petitioner, petitioner upon interrogation, has suffered a disclosure statement

and other material collected by the investigating agency and got demarcated

the place where the illicit liquor was being manufactured. Moreover, it has

also been argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are not clear as

several cases are stated to be pending against him. Learned State counsel

submits that keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the larger

public interest involved, involved, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of

regular bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and the specific role

attributed to the petitioner, learned State counsel has prayed for the

dismissal of the instant petition.

4 of 10

5. I have heard d learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the available record.

6. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the

court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and

principled manner, ensuring it aligns with with established legal precedents and

the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court ourt must

evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating

the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of

the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court ourt must also assess the

likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the

probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension

of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing,

and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the

Court ourt must weigh the potential danger of grant of bail undermining g the

administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference

in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Tripathi,, 2005 AIR Supreme

Court 3490, relevant whereof eof reads as under:

"14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

arge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC

5 of 10

280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179).

). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate thee witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though gh at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly ularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non non-application application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors tors also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension ofthreat to the complainant.

plainant.

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.

338."

This Court urt also in specific terms held that :

"the the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already eady undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on

6 of 10

bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesse witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

7. Indubitably, the he allegations against the petitioner are grave in

nature. The material which has come on record, at this stage, prima facie

suggests that the petitioner specially attributed an active role in the alleged

incident. The gravamen of the FIR transpires that the instant case has arisen

on account of an incident wherein the deceased Rishi Pal allegedly

consumed liquor purchased from liquor vend situated near village Tangail

and thereafter his h health got deteriorated. Thereafter, the he deceased was taken

to the hospital where he ultimately succumbed. During the course of

investigation, the viscera and blood samples of the deceased were sent for

forensic examination and as per the report of the Forensic Science

Laboratory, the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and Methyl Alcohol was

detected. The medical opinion on record indicates that the cause of death

was secondary to methyl alcohol poisoning and its complications complications. The

investigation conducted by the police further reveals that illicit liquor was

allegedly being manufactured at a factory situated at village Dhanaura,

District Ambala and was being supplied to various illegal liquor vends

operating in the surrounding areas. It is the case of the prosecut prosecution ion that the

liquor so manufactured was distributed through a network of accused

persons and the same ultimately reached the liquor vend from where the

deceased had allegedly purchased the liquor. During the course of

investigation, several accused persons were arrested and disclosure

statements were recorded which led the investigating agency to unravel an

alleged network engaged in the manufacture and distribution of spurious

7 of 10

liquor through various liquor vends. As per the case of the prosecution, the

premises emises owned by the petitioner have been used for setting up a

manufacturing unit for spurious liquor. The plea of the petitioner that his

role is limited to that of a landlord does not persuade this Court as the

material collected during investigation, in including cluding disclosure statements and

subsequent conduct, prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely

a landlord but has knowledge of the illegal activity being carried out in his

premises. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature and

involve serious allegations of conspiracy, illegal manufacture and

distribution of spurious liquor which resulted in multiple deaths due to

methyl alcohol poisoning. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been

named initially and his implication mplication is based upon the material collected

during the course of investigation. It is also a matter of record that the

investigation has culminated in the filing of the challan as well as a

supplementary challan and charges have been framed by the Cour Court below

against the petitioner. The record further reflects that the prosecution has

cited a large number of witnesses and the trial is currently at the stage of

recording evidence.

8. The allegations in the instant case pertain to an incident

involving the manufacture and circulation of illicit liquor leading to loss of

human life which is a matter of serious concern. The prosecution case, at

this stage, prima facie indicates the existence of a conspiracy involving

multiple persons engaged in the supply and use of alcohol for the

preparation of spurious liquor.

liquor The contention of learned counsel that the

name of the petitioner does not figure in the initial FIR and he has been

subsequently nominated does not, not by itself itself,, create a ground for grant of 8 of 10

regular bail, as it is well settled that an accused can be arrayed during the

course of investigation if sufficient material surfaces against him. Moreover,

such uch submissions would require deeper appreciation of evidence which

cannot appropriately be undertaken at at the stage of consideration of a bail

petition. It is apt to mention herein that the petitioner has a long criminal

history involving a large number of cases registered against him.. Though in

some of the cases he has been released on bail but the nature of the cases

cannot be ignored while considering the plea for grant of regular bail bail. The

criminal riminal antecedents of an accused are a relevant factor while considering

the prayer for bail, particularly where there is a reasonable apprehension

that the accused, if released, may indulge in similar activities or may

attempt to influence witnesses. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by

the prosecution has brought forth the involvement of several persons in the

alleged illegal activity and the allegation regar regarding letting out of the

premises for the manufacturing of spurious liquor liquor,, though disputed by the

petitioner, is a matter which requires examination during the course of trial.

At this stage, it cannot be said that the role attributed to the petitioner is

insignificant. The prosecution case specifically alleges that the involvement

of the petitioner surfaced during investigation on the basis of material

collected subsequently.

9. Furthermore, it is true that the petitioner has been languishing

in custody for a considerable period but the seriousness of the allegations

and his criminal antecedents weigh heavily against him. The material which

has been placed on record does not show that the delay in trial is solely

attributable to the prosecution.

prosecution. In such circumstances, long custody custody, by

itself, cannot be treated as a ground for grant of bail. Att this stage, no 9 of 10

accentuating circumstances have been made out which may prima facie

constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the ppetitioner, etitioner,

especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence on

record. It is also to be borne in mind that offences of this nature strike at the

very root of public order and societal conscience.

10. Considering the gravity of the ooffence, ffence, the stage of the trial and

the overall facts and circumstances emerging from the record, this Court

finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of

regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.

11. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby

dismissed.

(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted herein hereinabove above

shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency

as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without

being influenced with this order.