← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/64379/2025allowed

Manish v. State Of Haryana

2025-12-22Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal4 pages



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64379-2025 Decided on : 22.12.2025 Manish ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : 

   *** Present :

Mr. Anoop Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***   , J (ORAL)   

 

 

            

  



 

   

 !"#$ 

% 

 

 &'

(

)'(

   %'*('(+, +

  

-  .

  /,

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused wrongfully confined the complainant, robbed him on gun point, threatened to shoot him and fled away. Hence, the present FIR.    

 



  

!



"#

$ 

  

%

   % !

"#

     &  % '

 & 

    



$    (  )*

&   +    +

    &    



 

  & 

 0  







   1    



2

   ,

 

 

 -

+

 & !

!

 1



  , 4 

 

4  1  ,   

   5,   0 



 ,

  2    ,      2 

1   



 

  3  

 1  2  . 

'

 / 

       %

0  

/  

    

$

 & ! 

 !

  !

  

 +   !!



 



Learned State counsel further contends that the petitioner has played pivotal role in the offence and also got recovered Rs.3000/- alongwith country made pistol and thus, does not deserve any concession from this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is also involved in one other case of similar nature meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. 5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, particularly the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 12 days, co-accused Krishna and Ajay have

already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court, investigation is complete, challan stands presented, charges have been framed; out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the fact that the trial may take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. $ #    -,

 



         2 

6 7 +58 

  ,  



 



  1  

 ,

  ,



 

      

  +  8

"

   

   



  

& + 

  ,

  





11 

9 , ,  '

(   

-,



6 : ,8 !" ! 

#     $ 

  2





  ,

 



     2        

     





 -  

 

11 

9

 '

(3 1

 

   -,

  * 2;*  

  

      

      

 



  

 !       

    

 

         !      

 

 

      

 !     

   

 1  !! +  !    0

+

& %    !'



%

    * 



+ 3         34 + 3

 5  + '

 9.

All other pending applications, if any, are also disposed off, accordingly.

      ,,    

 0 +3 6 73- <

   ;

= 9