CRM-M- IN 212 Mani Ram v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. registered a 302 of Indi filed the pre 2. noticed her complaint l that his yo profession. mobile pho when the c -9736-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA i Ram of Haryana AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate fo Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Harya **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, an accused in case tered against him for commission of o f Indian Penal Code, at Police Station the present petition under Section 483 Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- Proceedings in the present ca int lodged by Pawan Kumar, son o is younger brother Sandeep, aged sion. On 03.08.2022, the complainan phone at about 4.00 AM from the he complainant tried to call his brot 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-9736-2025 Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. cate for the petitioner. , Haryana. n case FIR No. 166 dated 03.08.202 on of offences under Sections 147, 14 tation Odhan (Sirsa), District Sirsa, ha 483 of BNSS for grant of bail. ging from the documents on record b nt case were initiated on the basis on of Dharam Singh, alleging there aged about 25 years, is mason b inant received two missed calls on h the phone of his brother. Thereafte brother Sandeep, his brother’s phon .2026 8.2022, 47, 149, irsa, has cord be asis of herein on by on his eafter, phone GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- was ‘switch from his br mother wh handed ove on the pho Khuiyan N said villag thereafter, person, wh situated at The said pe kill his bro well as his Nepalpur, Mani Ram in the com compromis accused ha and kick bl Kaur upon as such, wa the FIR. H During inv involvemen -9736-2025 -2 witched off’. After about 10-15 min is brother Sandeep, who asked the which the complainant arranged. over the phone to him (c), when h phone saying that his brother Sand n Nepalpur and the said unknown p illage along with 4-5 persons for fter, another phone call was rece , who told him and his brother Sa d at Village Khuiyan Nepalpur and id person again asked him (c) to com brother. Complainant accompanie s his uncles Ram Kishan and Ram ur, where they came to know that S am (present petitioner) during night company of Mani Ram’s mothe omising position and that Mani Ram d had murdered Sandeep by inflict k blows. It is further the case of pros pon having been caught red hande , was a party to the offence. It is further an admitted fact . He was joined in the investigatio investigation, he (P) suffered a d ment in the commission of crime 2- minutes, complainant received a ca the complainant to let him talk to h ged. However, complainant’s moth en he heard voice of unknown perso andeep is in their custody at Villag wn persons asked him to come to th or taking back his brother. Shortl received by him from the unknow r Sandeep had come to their hou and had committed a wrongful ac o come there failing which they wou anied by his father Dharam Singh a am Kumar went to Village Khuiya at Sandeep had come to the house night and had been caught red hande other, namely, Parveen Kaur in Ram (petitioner) along with other c flicting injuries with sticks, belt, fi prosecution that co-accused Parvee anded had sided with co-accused an fact that the petitioner was named gation and was arrested on 4.8.202 a disclosure statement admitting h me and got recovered one iron pip a call to his other erson illage to the hortly, known house ul act. would gh as uiyan use of anded in a er co- lt, fist rveen d and ed in .2022. ng his n pipe GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- used in the make ‘Her possession. been grant vide orders and CRM Sessions Ju said applica grant of bai 3. been falsely the sake of true at its present pet Pawan Kum that invest complete, a the blikelih remote. Th purpose as 21 of the be against exception 4. submission -9736-2025 -3 n the commission of crime and on ‘Hero Spelndor’ (of deceased) alon sion. Co-accused Vikram alias Vick ranted the concession of bail by the ders dated 31.7.2025 and 11.12.202 M-M-40469-2024, respectively. Petitioner moved an applicatio ions Judge, Sirsa, who in terms of orde application. Aggrieved of which, the t of bail. Learned counsel for the petit falsely arrayed as an accused in the ake of arguments, the story put forth face value (though not admitted), nt petitioner to murder the deceased n Kumar). The second leg of submis investigations qua petitioner, who lete, as challan has been filed, charg likelihood of the trial being compl te. Thus, his (P) further incarcerati ose as the same would not only be vio Constitution of India, including ainst the principle of “Bail is a gen ion.” Prayer for allowing the petition Per contra, learned State issions raised by learned counsel 3- d one motorcycle No. HR-16M-860 along with key which were taken Vicky and Sandeep, both have sinc y the Coordinate Bench of this Cou .2024 passed in CRM-M-64576-202 lication for grant of bail before learne f order dated 10.02.2025, dismissed th the present petition has been filed fo e petitioner submits that petitioner ha the present case. Further, assuming fo forth by the prosecution is taken to b itted), there was no occasion/motive fo eased (younger brother of complaina submission raised by learned counsel who was arrested on 4.8.2022, a charge was framed on 21.12.2022, b completed in the near future is qui rceration would not serve any usef violative of his rights under Artic right to speedy trial but would als general rule and incarceration is etition has been made. State counsel while opposing unsel for the petitioner, submits th 8603 ken in since Court 2024 learned ssed the filed for ner has ing for en to be tive for plainant unsel is , are 022, but is quite useful Article also an the that GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner attack on gravity and of bail to 5. documents 6. have alread accused Vi the FIR an granted the orders date CRM-M-40 petitioner, may prejud 04.08.202 been filed, prosecution completion favour of p extending h only be vio including r “Bail is a -9736-2025 -4 ioner was a member of unlawful on the deceased, who dies as a and seriousness of offence, it has petitioner is made out. Heard learned counsel for ments on record. Factual aspects of the case lea already been noticed in para 2 of the Vikram alias Vicky and Sandeep and to whom specific roles had the concession of bail by the Co dated 31.7.2025 and 11.12.2024 pa 40469-2024, respectively. In view of the submissions adv ioner, but without commenting further prejudice the trial, the fact that petit .2022, investigations qua him are co filed, as also taking note of the cution witnesses, remain to be letion of trial in the near future is quit ur of petitioner, who is not involved ding him concession of bail, for his be violative of his rights under Articl ding right to speedy trial but would is a general rule and incarceratio 4- assembly which unleashed brut consequence thereof. In view has been prayed that no case for gra for the parties and perused leading to the registration of the FI the order. It is not disputed that ndeep who were specifically named had been assigned, have since bee Coordinate Bench this Court vid 24 passed in CRM-M-64576-2024 an advanced by learned counsel for further on the merits of the case, lest petitioner has been in custody sinc are complete, for challan has alread f the fact that substantial number o be examined, thus, possibility o is quite remote, lenient view is taken volved in any other criminal case, b for his further incarceration would n Article 21 of the Constitution of Indi would also be against the principle o ration is an exception” as held b brutal view of grant the FIR co- amed in been vide 024 and the lest it since already ber of ility of taken in ase, by uld not f India, ciple of held by GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Hon’ble another, 20 7. to his furn Court/Duty following c -9736-2025 -5 ble Supreme Court in Dataram 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Resultantly, petitioner is grant is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not the trial. (ii) The petitioner will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not (vii) The petitioner shall f number to the Trial Court fo same till the conclusion of the the petitioner seeks to chang shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The petitioner will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. 5- vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an s granted the concession of bail subje s to the satisfaction of learned tri The petitioner shall abide by th not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th l not leave the country without prio urt. l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order and subject ed trial by the during e the prior to the which oerce, ith the g such ith the berty. obile ge the eason, same Trial n each der of GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. that in case at liberty t order. 9. herein are l construed a independen 18.02.2026 gbs -9736-2025 -6 (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioner. Accordingly, the present petiti in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6- ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th t petition is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b ail as granted to the petitioner by th t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No other g the de clear shall be by this ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.02.23 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document