226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24924-2024 Date of decision:-12.05.2025 YUVRAJ SINGH ALIAS MANNU ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY. Present:- Mr. S.S.Jattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amrik Singh Narwal, DAG, Haryana. ***** SANJIV BERRY, J.(ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of regular bail in the following case (Annexure P-1):- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 327 09.11.2023 304, 328, 120-B IPC (302 IPC and 72A(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill 2020) added later on) Barara, District Ambala o. 2), Mo 2. Arguments heard. 3. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, and has been falsely implicated in this case, he has no concern whatsoever with the allegations levelled in the FIR, but has been implicated in the present case solely on the second disclosure statement made by co-accused Ankit @ Mogli with whom the Gyan Chand 2025.05.14 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioner has no concern. He has referred to the such statement of co- accused to say that except for naming the petitioner to have participated in the crime, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2024, challan has already been presented in Court, wherein 51 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and till date non of them has been examined. He contends that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail vide order dated 31.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-27047 of 2024 and CRM-M-27123- 2024 and also vide order dated 24.06.2024 passed in CRM-M-29700-2024. Hence, prayed for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel referring to the reply submitted by the State, has opposed the bail petition by arguing that petitioner is involved in heinous crime and deserves no concession of bail. He, however, stated that petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement (Annexure R-1) made by co-accused Ankit @ Mogli. He submits that the trial is going on, wherein 51 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 5. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that instant FIR was registered on the death of one Shivam @ Lokesh, on account of taking some poisonous food. During course of investigation, police arrested Shekhar, Parveen Kumar, Uttam Singh and Puneet Singh who were lodged in Jail and after joining them in investigation were sent to judicial custody. Later police arrested co-accused Ankit @ Mogli also lodged in Central Jail, Ambala and on production warrants on Gyan Chand 2025.05.14 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12.12.2023 and during course of interrogation, he disclosed the name of the petitioner and also co-accused Uttam Singh, Kapil Pandit, Gaurav, Pardeep etc. to be involved in crime. The petitioner was accordingly arrested in pursuance to the production warrants on 02.02.2024 and during investigation he also demarcated the place in village Dhanaura. 6. The perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner has been nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Ankit @ Mogli along with other co-accused of having being involved in the commission of the crime, however, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner, even as per the reply filed by the State, there is nothing on record that thepetitioner was in partnership with co-accused Ankit @ Mogli to do illegal business. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner has been in custody since 02.02.2024 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented in Court, wherein prosecution has cited 51 witnesses and till date none of them have been examined. The conclusion of trial to ascertain criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner will take sufficient long time. The learned State counsel has not disputed the grant of bail to other co-accused as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra). Therefore, in these circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer in custody. 7. Resultantly, in these circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the Gyan Chand 2025.05.14 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. 8. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. 9. Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 12.05.2025 Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Gyan Chand 2025.05.14 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document