Parveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 11th, 2025 Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023 under Sections 201, 272, 308, 328, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 61, 63-A, 72-A of The Punjab Excise Act, 1914, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a labourer in the chemical factory, which was being run by co-accused Kapil Pandit and Ankit alias Mogli, who were allegedly manufacturing spurious and illicit liquor. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a mere employee in the chemical factory was involved in the bottling of the spurious liquor and thus could not have possibly been aware about the spurious liquor being bottled and which led to the death of several persons. It has been submitted that the petitioner has now been in custody since 10.11.2023

-2and after the challan was presented and charges framed, only four prosecution witnesses out of the 53 cited have been examined. Hence, further incarceration of the petitioner in the circumstances would serve no useful purpose. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is at par with co-accused Saurabh, who too was an employee in the chemical factory and has since been extended the concession of bail.

3.

Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he, on instructions, disputed the stage of trial. It has also not been disputed, on instructions, that the petitioner is identically placed as co-accused Saurabh, who has since been extended the concession of bail; both the petitioner as well as co-accused Saurabh were labourers involved in the bottling of the illicit liquor. However, it has been contended by the learned State counsel that on account of consumption of the spurious liquor, as many as 20 persons lost their lives.

4.

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

5.

The petitioner has been in custody since 10.11.2023. The trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future as only four prosecution witnesses out of the 53 cited have been examined. The prime accused Kapil Pandit and Ankit alias Mogli are still in judicial custody.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is

-3made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 7.

Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

July 11th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No