← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27577/2025allowed

Moin Alias Moni v. State Of Haryana

2025-09-08Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 1.

CRM-M-27577-2025 MOIN ALIAS MONI ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT 2.

CRM-M-27667-2025 DILSHAD ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT 3.

CRM-M-36497-2025 JAHIR KHAN ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM-M-27577-2025 and CRM-M-27667-2025) Mr. Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-36497-2025.

Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the complainant. in CRM-M-27667-2025.

Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This order shall disposed of the aforesaid three petitions filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 135 dated

-225.05.2023 under Sections 148,149,323,324,452,302,506,120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with the co-accused were having enmity with the deceased and on 24.05.2023 an altercation took place between the family of the petitioners and the deceased, thereupon the petitioners along with their co-accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with knife, dandas, iron rods, iron pipes and other sharp edged weapons and attacked the deceased and his family members caused injuries to the deceased namely Mannavar resulting in his death. The petitioners along with other co-accused conspired to commit the aforesaid act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioners were also found present in the CCTV footage however in the case of Irshad, who was also similarly placed has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2025. 4.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. He has filed the custody certificates of the petitioners in the Court today and the same are taken on record. As per custody certificates, the petitioners are in custody for the last more than 02 years. He further submits that petitioners are not involved in any other case. He further submits that out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses, only 09 have been examined so far. 5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

-36.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years; out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses, only 09 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far; the continuous detention of the petitioners would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial. 7.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall not intervene the complainant in any manner whatsoever. If any such complaint is filed, the State is free to move application for cancellation of their bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 08.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No