[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veeru @ Veeru Raj vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2026
CRM-M-66630-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117
CRM-M-66630-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2026
Veeru @ Veeru Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. BS Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
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.77 dated 11.05.2024,
registered under Sections 323, 452, 148, 149, 506 IPC (Sections 325, 308 IPC
added later on), at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody
for 1 year, 1 month and 11 days. As per the allegations, he gave a blow on the
back and legs of Vansh. He underwent DJ stent Placement for Right Sided
Ureteric Calculi under Spinal Anesthesia on 16.10.2025 and granted interim bail
from 22.09.2025 to 17.11.2025 for the said purpose whereafter he surrendered
and had not misused the same, a fact which has been confirmed by the Medical
Officer, Jail Hospital, Faridkot dated 17.03.2026, Annexure R/T-1 and
Annexures 1 and 2 appended therewith, as per which, he was referred to higher
centers as and when required. Challan has been presented on 15.01.2025,
charges have been framed on 09.10.2025 and none, out of 15 PWs, has been
examined. He is involved in five more cases, 2 of which are under NDPS Act,
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. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner of having caused injuries while being
part of unlawful assembly. He, however, is unable to controvert with regard to
custody, stage, petitioner being on bail in two cases, never misused the
concession of bail and particularly with regard to his medical condition.
4. Heard.
5. 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 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."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioner is in custody for last 1 year, 1 month and 11 days; on bail in
two cases; never misused the concession of bail earlier granted; challan was
presented on 15.01.2025, charges stands framed on 09.10.2025 and out of 15
PWs, none has yet 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
18.03.2026
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
