Deepak @ Lambu v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101+208 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 DEEPAK @ LAMBU PETITIONER VS STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vishal Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) CRM-39081-2025 This application has been filed for placing on record the bail orders as Annexures P-3 to P-7.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-3 to P-7 are ordered to be taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

Main case:

1.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 241 dated 08.09.2019 under Sections 34,120B,201,302,379B, 397, 452 of IPC registered at Police Station, IMT, Rohtak.

-22.

The case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased namely Pardeep on his head with a liquor bottle and committed his murder.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2019. He further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner. He further submits that the complainant has not been examine yet.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in committing the murder. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per which, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 years 10 months and 18 days. He further submits that out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses, only 11 have been examined so far.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 04 years 10 months and 18 days; out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses, only 11 have been examined so far; the trial is moving at a snail's pace, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-38.

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

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 26.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No