Manjit v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.08.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate for the
***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
!"#"#
#$%!&' % '(#)%'**
!")(!#"&("#(!(#!+
#"! ,
--
(.
/ /
# /
0 % 1
'
23&
!"#
!$ "% $ "
# & % " % #
'
( ) * +& $ * ( $ * ( !& * $ ! * $ ,- *.+# * +#$ * ( - * /0 +&- *. & ) $ +# 1*০ +& * $0
P a g e | 2
# - * /$ 1* () $ * +& $ 2 * -0 ( " #
! +&- " $& 3 / * ! & " (&! !& 4 %"% -
56.78.870 .8..& " " , " $ ( ,- $ !& $! " "+ * ("! " "%& 0 "" "0% 0 0
9 " "
9 &0 "0
& ' & , * +#
&& % "1- " & " $
& 1 % $ & % $ " 0
"0 + 0#&& 0 " $ ( ,- $ !& $ ! ( ) $ $ !& ! ,- $ +&- +&- /$+# &%!& " # - $ 1* ( $ $2
"#& " -&&& * 9:39; $ ( 665<6<68.6 9 % & + % & # " " 2 / -& "&" #
! / & " % " % "" 9 - 88=*$ 2 /- =6*$ ( =58*$ &%0 "&%
- & "&& &%"&
P a g e | 3 ! *"3& !0 0-& 90 & &"+ " (" #
!"& % &&
"
"" >>: ) 2/$> >9$ ):>/ /: >9$ % %"-&
"" 2(-7 .7#& &%%%"" "&#&4 " " & 0 " +%& >>: )2/$>>9$
&%0"0" + 0
0 % % - & 0 $ ) "" & "&"7& 0
5"0
&
"
& 0 0-* 8 && %
- & 0 )0 & " 0 & %& 0
-%" %%
-& 0 0 " + % - >2 5. 0 &# 0 2 ?- 7 .7 "%#"$ 2& &
4& # " - 2 % 9 ( =58 $ & % # ' $,2 :
55@67 56.78.87 0 -- & ' 0%& 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the prime role attributed to the petitioner is that of conspiracy. 4
has further
P a g e | 4 argued that there is no material available on record alongwith challan which may be recorded that the petitioner was present at the spot when the murder in question took place. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the FIR-
5
6
## (
1
Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Counsel for the State has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.
Learned counsel for the
has argued that the petitioner is accused of committing a serious offence and, in case, he is enlarged on regular bail there is all the likelihood that he may intimidate the prosecution witnesses including the FIR-
4
6 (
6(
( 2
17 2 %'
2
1 1
5
6.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
7.
The petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2024, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 19.07.2024 wherein total 45 witnesses have been cited, out of which none has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta
P a g e | 5 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:
56 2 0 0 & # #%"" 0 &" " % % # # & # " 1 # " " &0 " - "" " 0 0 "# & A 0 0 " " ""& """
%&# 5@" & %% &# & " " # & 9 85"2 & &&& "0 9 85" 2&& &#""B The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage lest it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties.
2
8
9
2
6
P a g e | 6 As per the custody certificate dated 06.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 1 year and 1 month. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is shown to be involved in three other cases under Section 138 of NIA and the petitioner is stated to be involved in another FIR under Section 302 of IPC, in which he was acquitted vide judgment dated 25.07.2018. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v.
State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.388222022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
P a g e | 7 (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
9.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
10.
Ordered accordingly.
11.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
12.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE August 12, 2025 :# Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No