Ravi Alias Jangli v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.08.2025 RAVI ALIAS JANGLI .... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** AMAN CHAUDHARY , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of the BNSS is for seeking grant of regular bail of the petitioner in case FIR No.81 dated 28.03.2021 under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Dujana, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1). 2.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in custody for last 4 years and more than 4 months. He alleges false implication. He was involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Sanjay. There is no overt act attributed to the petitioner, except for the allegation that he was present at the scene when the alleged incident took place. Though the charges were framed on 08.07.2022, however, out of 35 prosecution witnesses, only 9 have been examined. He is involved in two

more cases, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 26.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 4 years, 4 months and 23 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, and the petitioner being on bail in other cases. 5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 4 years, 4 months and 23 days; on bail in other cases; out of 35 prosecution witnesses, 9 have yet been examined though the charges stands framed on 08.07.2022, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 8.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

10.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) 27.08.2025 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No