Manoj Mathur v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 215+219+220 CRM-M-5481-2026 Manoj Mathur ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CRM-M-18407-2026 Sachin Singh @ Chhotu ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CRM-M-18688-2026 Shiva @ Raja ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent Decided on : 28.04.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Hukum Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

(Oral) 1.

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-5481-2026, CRM-M-184072026 and CRM-M-18688-2026, as all the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is CRM-M-5481-2026. 2.

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,

2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Manoj Mathur [petitioner in CRM-M5481-2026] 18.03.2025 S. 310(2), 311, 331(7), 61(2), 109(1) of BNS, 2023 & S. 25(1B) a, 27, 25(8)/54/59 of Arms Act.

Suraj Kund Faridabad Sachin Singh @ Chhotu [petitioner in CRM-M18407-2026] 18.03.2025 S. 310(2), 311, 331(7) , 61(2), 109(1) of BNS, 2023 (Section 395, 397, 459, 120-B, 307 of IPC) & S. 25(1B)a, 27, 25, 25(8), 54, 59 of Arms Act.

Suraj Kund Faridabad Shiva alias Raja [petitioner in CRM-M18688-2026] 18.03.2025 S. 310(2), 311, 331(7) of BNS, 2023 and S. 25 of Arms Act [S. 61(2), 109(1) of BNS, 2023 & S.

25(1B)a, 27, 25, 25(8)/54/59 of Arms Act, added later on] Suraj Kund Faridabad 3.

As per the allegations in the FIR, incident took place at about 3:45 a.m. on 18.03.2025, when the injured, Mohit, had come to the warehouse behind the liquor shop in vehicle No. UP-15GT-5421 to deliver the shop's cash to the complainant, Pradeep. Thereafter, one Chander Prakash Jinku also arrived in a separate vehicle, No. DL3CAE-4702, to deliver the shop's cash. During this time, five to six persons emerged from behind and fired shots with pistols and revolvers, with which they were armed. As a result, injuries were caused to (i) Mohit, (ii) Chander Prakash @ Jinku (iii) Pankaj Jha, and (iv) Sonu. The accused succeeded in breaking the cash box of the liquor shop and absconded with approximately Rs.

1,60,000/- and a STAR WALKER liquor crate.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the names of none of the accused appear in the FIR, nor is there any specific reference to the role or physical description of the persons who committed the loot at the shop. Learned counsel further submits that, without any concrete evidence, petitioners have been implicated in the present case on the allegation that he conducted a 'reconnaissance' of the wine shop and conveyed such information to the persons who later committed the loot. In view of these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

5.

In compliance of the order dated 02.02.2026, learned State counsel has filed medical report by way of affidavit of Varun Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime-II, Faridabad in Court today. Same is taken on record.

6.

Learned State counsel submits that, petitioner - Manoj Mathur (in CRM-M-5481-2026) got recovered the vehicle No.HR-55-AN-4674 (upon ₹ which he had conducted the recee) and also got recovered amount of 6,000 i.e. his share out of the looted amount.

Further, State Counsel argues that petitioner - Sachin Singh @ Chhotu (in CRM-M-18407-2026) and petitioner-Shiva @ Raja (in CRM-M18688-2026) had fired bullet shots along with co-accused Sachin@Mogli, CCL 'B' and Suraj in order to loot the money from the liquor vend and thus, both are main accused persons. Besides, he argues that petitioner- Sachin Singh@ Chhotu got recovered Rs.5000 i.e. his share out of the looted amount and also disclosed that gun used in the crime has been handed over to co-

accused -Shiva. Also, petitioner- Shiva @Raja got recovered the pistol used in the crime from the state of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of prayer of bail to all the petitioners (herein). 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto, including the status report.

8.

At this stage, out of total cited 39 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, and thus, trial is not moving at the required pace. Besides, one of the almost similarly situated co-accused, namely, Satvir @ Aman, has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2026, passed in CRM-M-47227-2025 (O&M), titled as, "Satvir @ Aman v. State of Haryana". It is also noticed by this court that petitioners are in custody for more than a period of 1 year. Therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to all the petitioners herein. 9.

Accordingly, Petitioners Manoj Mathur (in CRM-M-5481-2026), Sachin Singh @ Chhotu (in CRM-M-18407-2026) and Shiva @ Raja (in CRM-M-18688-2026) are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

10.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as

expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 11.

It is further made clear that if, in future, the petitioners are found to be directly involved in similar activities, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

12.

Petitions stand disposed of.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 28.04.2026 poonam Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO