[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Puneet vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026

CRM-M--32466-2024                                                          1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

106-6                                              CRM-M-32466-2024


Puneet                                                    ....Petitioner

                                          V/s

State of Haryana                                          ....Respondent


Date of decision: 16.03.2026
Date of Uploading : 18.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:    Mr. Mange Ram Sharma, 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 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204

and 120-B B of IPC and Section 42 of Prisoners Act (Added later on) 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 tha thatt 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

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

1 of 10

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 family members that he had

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

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

alleged that his father had died 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 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 agency claimed to have unearthed a larger network allegedly

involved in the manufacture, supply and distribution of illicit and spurious

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

2 of 10

relevant provisions of the Excise Act were invoked against the accused

persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he has no

connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has furher

iterated that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor attributed any

overt act and has been implicated without any substantive material linking

him to the alleged crime. It has been further contended that the role

attributed to the petitioner is extremely limited, inasmuch as, he merely

acted as a witness to a rent agreement executed between co-accused Uttam

Singh and Kapil Sharma for letting out a premises. Learned counsel has

emphasized that mere attestation of a rent-deed cannot be construed as

participation in a criminal conspiracy. It has been further argued that there is

no recovery effected from the petitioner nor is there any evidence to show

that the petitioner was involved in the manufacturing, storage or distribution

of illicit liquor. Learned counsel has pointed out that the case against the

petitioner is stated to be based solely on disclosure statements of co-

accused, which have limited evidentiary value in law. It has been further

submitted that the entire prosecution story is concocted and no independent

or corroborative evidence exists to connect the petitioner with the alleged

offence. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been in custody

for a considerable period and the trial is progressing at a snail's pace.

Learned counsel has asserted that the prosecution has cited large number of

witnesses and the trial is likely to take 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 3 of 10

the prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses and not leaving the

country without prior permission of the Court. On the strength of aforesaid

submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned 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 counsel has iterated that during the course of

investigation, a larger conspiracy involving several persons engaged in the

manufacture and distribution of poisonous liquor has been unearthed.

According to learned State counsel, the petitioner has played a crucial role

in arranging the premises belonging to co-accused Uttam Singh and has

facilitated its lease to co-accused Ankit @ Mogli and Kapil for the purpose

of setting up a manufacturing unit of illicit liquor. According to learned

State counsel, the petitioner was fully aware of the purpose for which the

premises have been taken on rent. Learned State counsel submits that the

manufacturing unit established at the said premises was the source of

spurious liquor, which was subsequently supplied through a network of

liquor vends, ultimately leading to multiple deaths due to methyl alcohol

poisoning. The petitioner, therefore, is stated to be an integral part of the

conspiracy having facilitated the very establishment of the manufacturing

unit. Learned State counsel submits that keeping in view the seriousness of

the offence and the larger public interest 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 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 established legal precedents and

the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court 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 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 must weigh the potential danger of grant of bail undermining 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, 2005 AIR Supreme

Court 3490, relevant whereof 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; (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 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper

5 of 10

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 the 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 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 where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors 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.

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."

This Court also in specific terms held that :

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

6 of 10

7. Indubitably, the 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 health got deteriorated. Thereafter, the 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. 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 prosecution 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

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

petitioner has been actively involved in running an illegal liquor vend and

was part of the distribution chain of the spurious liquor. It is borne out from

the record that the petitioner was instrumental in arranging the premises and 7 of 10

facilitating its lease for the establishment of an illicit liquor manufacturing

unit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the act of facilitating the

availability of premises, when coupled with the allegation of knowledge

regarding its illegal use, assumes more importance in the factual milieu of a

criminal conspiracy. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was

only attesting witness to the rent agreement. Rather, the circumstances,

brought forth during the course of investigation, prima facie indicate that

the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. The plea of

the petitioner that no recovery has been effected is not determinative in a

case of conspiracy, where the role of each accused may be distinct yet

interconnected. Similarly, the argument regarding inadmissibility of

disclosure statements is a matter to be examined during trial and cannot be

conclusively adjudicated at the stage of bail. The offence alleged against

the petitioner is 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 implication of the petitioner 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 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 8 of 10

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

preparation of spurious liquor. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by

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

alleged illegal activity and the plea of the petitioner that he has no nexus

whatsoever with the manufacture, distribution or sale of spurious liquor, is a

matter which requires examination during the course of trial. 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. The criminal

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. 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

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.

In such circumstances, long custody, by itself, cannot be treated as a ground

for grant of bail. At this stage, no accentuating circumstances have been

made out which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the

grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the

allegations and the evidence on record. It is also to be borne in mind that

9 of 10

offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal

conscience.

10. Considering the gravity of the offence, 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 hereinabove

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.