Manvir Alias Mintu v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 Manvir @ Mintu .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. S. P. S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.175, dated 17.09.2024, under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Bahu Akbarpur, District Rohtak.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Narender Singh, son of Daya Singh. It was alleged that the complainant was running a Zamindar Dhaba on Rohtak road. Sahil Phogat, who was doing the work of transport, has a driver, namely, Manveer Singh, i.e. the petitioner, who drives his vehicle. It was alleged that Manveer Singh, who is the truck driver, often used to visit the Dhaba of complainant. On 16.09.2024, at about 7:00 P.M., the complainant along with his friend, namely, Pradeep

-2- (injured) were present at the Dhaba and in the meantime, Manveer Singh (petitioner) came there. He started abusing Pradeep without any reason and thereafter, an altercation took place and Pradeep started going towards empty plot besides the Dhaba of complainant, however Manveer Singh followed him with a knife and stabbed in the stomach of Pradeep. They tried to apprehend Manveer Singh but he escaped. They shifted Pradeep to the Hospital and thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The injured, Pradeep was medico legally examined. The petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2024. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 17.02.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2024. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that as per the MLR, only one injury has been found to have been given by the petitioner. He has submitted that the complainant and eye-witness both have already been examined and there is no apprehension of the petitioner would influence the prosecution witnesses. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

-34.

Status report by way of an affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalanaur, District Rohtak on behalf of the respondent-State has already been filed by the learned State counsel in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is the only accused in the present FIR, who has stabbed the injured, Pradeep. He has submitted that the complainant and injured have already been examined and both have supported the case of prosecution. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court which is taken on record.

6.

Heard.

7.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 17.09.2024. The injured and the complainant have already been examined. The injured, Pradeep has suffered only one injury. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 02 months and 22 days as on 09.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined so far. 8.

The veracity of the allegations and counter allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. 9.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on

-4the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 10.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 10.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No