Vilash Kumar Alias Sandeep v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43412-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.08.2025 VILASH KUMAR ALIAS SANDEEP ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. Mandeep Singh Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)
  This is a third petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya -1Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.448 dated 03.11.2021 under Sections 302, 323, 452, 506 IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has caused death of one Sandeep by giving blow on his head by an iron rod during a dispute between the workers and the Management in a factory. The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid FIR.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further states that the petitioner has undergone a custody period of more than 03 years and 03 months and 26 days and out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined so far.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Sonia Puri 2025.08.20 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

6.

Learned counsel for the State by way of filing of custody -2certificate, vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail and does not refute the fact that the petitioner has undergone a custody period of 03 years, 03 months and 26 days and out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined so far.

7.

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

8.

Keeping in view the above and the fact that the custody period undergone by the petitioner is 03 years, 03 months and 26 days; out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

9.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, if the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 11.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 19th August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.20 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document