Vikram Alias Mota v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-70245-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2025 Vikram @ Mota ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana.

Ms. Surekha, Advocate for Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.666 dated 08.08.2023, registered under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 2 years, 4 months and 10 days. He alleges false implication. He has been attributed stick blow to the deceased, however, the fatal has been attributed to co-accused Gurdeep Singh, who is in custody. Co-accused Manoj Panghal has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 as also Kapil & Amit vide order of even date. Charges have been framed on 03.04.2025 and out of 22 PWs, 4 material witnesses have been examined. He is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 19.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2

-2years, 4 months and 10 days.

4.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner who has been named in the FIR, that he stopped the vehicle of the deceased, whereupon the injuries were inflicted upon him. However, learned State counsel is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, petitioner being not involved in any other case and co-accused having been enlarged on bail. 5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years, 4 months and 10 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused are on bail; Charges were framed on 03.04.2025 and 4 material witnesses, out of 22, have yet been examined, 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.

7.

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.

-3- (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. 8.

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.

9.

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) 22.12.2025 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No