CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 211 JITENDER ALIAS RULDHA STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. BSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65 dated 21.03.2025, registered at Police Station Section 61- Bill, 2020) and Sections 318(4), 338, 2023. 2. custody for which recovery of liquor was effected, is owned by co who is in custody. can be said to be in conscious possession of the CRM-M-52054-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision JITENDER ALIAS RULDHA Versus STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate and Ms. Srishti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65 dated 21.03.2025, registered at Police Station Sad -4-20 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) and Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 61 of the BNS, Learned counsel contends that the petition custody for about 6 moths. He alleges false implication. The truck, from which recovery of liquor was effected, is owned by co who is in custody. It is a debatable question as to whether the petition can be said to be in conscious possession of the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52054-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 19.09.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondent BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate and Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65 dated dar Tauru, District Nuh, under 20 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment 336(3), 340 and 61 of the BNS, Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in about 6 moths. He alleges false implication. The truck, from which recovery of liquor was effected, is owned by co-accused, Sandeep, It is a debatable question as to whether the petitioner can be said to be in conscious possession of the liquor. There are 21 PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52054-2025 -2- witnesses still remain to be examined. The petitioner is involved in 3 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 18.09.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 05 months and 28 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner is indulged in transporting the illicit liquor. 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. 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.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.” 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 5 months and 28 days; on PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52054-2025 -3- bail in other cases; out of 25 witnesses, only 4 have been examined so far; 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. (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. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52054-2025 -4- 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. 19.09.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.