Mandeep v. State Of Haryana
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 17.02.2026 Mandeep . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana assisted by PSI Ravi, P.S. Sadar Kaithal **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District Mandeep 210 12.08.2025 25(1-B(a) Arms Act, 1959 Kaithal Sadar Kaithal [S. 54, 59 of Arms Act, added later on] 2.
As per allegations in FIR, while the police party on patrolling, one secret informant gave information to the police, that Mandeep (petitioner herein) is a vagabond and possesses illegal weapon with him. Since information was considered to be reliable, members of the police team reached at Satsang Bhawan in Budhakheda, where, a young boy was noticed (petitioner herein). After being overpowered by the police and on
- 2 - conducting search, a pistol of .315 bore (country-made) along with a live cartridge was recovered from his possession.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that offence is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and petitioner is inside jail for the last more than a period of six months, i.e., from the date of registration of FIR on dated 12.08.2025. Further submits that the maximum punishment in this offence is for a period of 1 to 3 years in routine. Though petitioner has been shown to be involved in four other cases, but all such cases are false, which all were launched against the petitioner in the year 2021 only by registering the same at Police Station Sadar Kaithal only. Besides this, never any other criminal case is ever registered against the petitioner, in fact, the cases, wherein petitioner has been shown to be involved, all such cases are due to grudges.
4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that all the nine cited prosecution witnesses have been examined, however, he has not denied the fact that out of four above mentioned criminal cases, in one case he has already been acquitted and till date, there is no finding of conviction recorded against the petitioner.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record including the status report dated 14.01.2026 filed by the State.
6.
Para No.7 of the status report reads as under:- "7.
That regarding the role of the petitioner Mandeep, it is stated that he was apprehended by police with a country made pistol .315 bore and a live cartridge on 12.08.2025. During inspection by armor, the recovered weapon and cartridge was found in working condition. The petitioner is habitual offender and during verification of available police
- 3 - record the petitioner was found involved in many other criminal cases detailed below:- a.
FIR No. 08 dated 06-01-2021, Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, Police Station Sadar Kaithal. (Acquitted on 04.11.2025).
b.
FIR No. 37 dated 14-02-2021, Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, Police Station Sadar Kaithal. (Under Trial fixed for 03.09.2026 for prosecution evidence, petitioner is on bail).
c.
FIR No. 56 dated 01-03-2021, Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, Police Station Sadar Kaithal. Under Trial fixed for 21.01.2026 for prosecution evidence, petitioner is on bail).
d.
FIR No. 294 dated 17-10-2021 under sections 323, 341, 206, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar. (Under Trial fixed for 28.01.2026 for prosecution evidence, petitioner is on bail)."
7.
In the present case, recovery effected from the petitioner is of one country-made pistol along with one live cartridge. Whether such recovery has been effected in accordance with law and whether it stands proved against the petitioner, is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial. It is also noticeable that the offences alleged are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and petitioner is in custody for a period of more than six months.
So far as the criminal antecedents of petitioner are concerned, as reflected in the status report, it is an admitted position that in one of the cases, he has already been acquitted and in the remaining cases, he is on bail and no finding of conviction has been recorded against him till date. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, as well as the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereabove, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail
- 4 - to the petitioner.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
8.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
9.
Any of the discussion done and recorded here-above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
10.
It is further made clear that if, in future, the petitioner is found to be directly involved in similar activities, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
11.
Petition stands disposed of.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE February 17, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No