CRM-M-15625-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 CRM-M-15625-2025 Date of decision:09.09.2025 Vikrant Rana ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant one is the 3rd petition as filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023, registered under Sections 201, 272, 308, 328, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 34 IPC and Sections 61, 63-A, 72-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020), at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. One of his previous petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn whereas the second one was for grant of interim bail which was allowed. 2. As per the allegations, on 09.11.2023, a secret information was received by the complainant SI Karam Chand to the effect that the accused Kapil Pandit and Ankit @ Mogli along with other accomplices were involved in manufacturing fake/spurious countrymade liquor in the premises of an old factory existing in the area of Village Dhanaura, District Ambala. It was also informed that if raid was conducted, HARJEET KAUR 2025.09.10 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15625-2025 -2- they could be apprehended while manufacturing illicit liquor. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was immediately formed which reached at the informed place and recovered some burnt empty liquor bottles, six bottles of fake liquor, wrappers having written “Taaza Malta”, one electric machine of liquor making and several big as well as small plastic drums and one drum having fevicol and 90 empty plastic bottles. All these articles were taken into custody. The aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The co-accused Uttam Singh, Puneet, Ankit and Nishant Rana were arrested. The petitioner was nominated as accused on the allegations that he was involved in supplying spurious/illicit liquor manufactured by accused Ankit @ Mogli and his accomplices in the aforementioned factory. He was arrested and is in custody since 17.11.2023. Investigation stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. He has been connected with the case on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from him. There is nothing on record to connect him with the subject crime. Out of 51 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. 08 co- accused have since been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too, deserves to be released on bail. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying him benefit of bail in this case. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State HARJEET KAUR 2025.09.10 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15625-2025 -3- counsel that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. His complicity in the crime stands established from the evidence produced on record. The trial may be expedited. The petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in some cases. There are chances of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties carefully. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in supply of spurious/illicit liquor. He was nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The trial will take considerable time. He has already remained in custody for a period of over 01 year, 09 months and 22 days. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. It is well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. Though, the petitioner is stated to be involved in some other cases but that cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. Given the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the period of custody and the other facts peculiar to this case, but without commenting on the merits of the case, it is held that the petitioner has made a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Court. (MANISHA BATRA) 09.09.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2025.09.10 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document