Varun @ Golu v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-66581-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-66581-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Varun @ Golu ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Vikram Singh Lakhlan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.174 dated 29.05.2025, registered under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023 at Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 06 months and 01 day. He was not named in the FIR. There is no recovery effected from him. Though he is stated to have seen in the CCTV footage, which is not clear. Co-accused Deepak and Divank @ Divanshu @ Golu have been granted bail vide orders dated 19.09.2025 and 13.11.2025, Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively, after being in custody 4 months and 6 months respectively.Challan was presented on 28.07.2025, but charges have not been framed so far. In all there are 13 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in 02 cases wherein he is on bail. 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 02.12.2025, filed by the learned State

CRM-M-66581-2025 (O&M) 2 counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 06 months and 01 day.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having demanded the ransom. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial and the petitioner being not involved in other case. 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.

 


 

  





 




  


 












 
 










hallan was presented on 28.07.2025, but charges are to be framed;

 
 

 


  
 




 


 

 




   



  


  



 


!



   

"


 

  

 # 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

CRM-M-66581-2025 (O&M) 3 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) JUDGE 02.12.2025 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No