CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (113) 1. CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) MANISH RAWAL … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent 2. CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) BHARAT … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent Date of Decision:20.07.2026 -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-41789-2025. Mr. Jarnail Singh Sahneta, Advocate with Mr. Prashant, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Kanojia, Advocate, Ms. Aditi Singh, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Wadhwa, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-100-2026. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the complainant in both cases). Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:2:- 1. By way of this common order, this Court proposes to decide the above-captioned two petitions, both preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the concession of regular bail, as they arise out of the same FIR and involve common questions of fact and law. 2. The present petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 425 dated 06.10.2024, initially registered under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, with offences under Sections 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act having been added during the course of investigation, at Police Station Kheri Pul, District Faridabad, Haryana. 2.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 05.10.2024, the complainant, Janme Jai Singh, along with his family members, had gone to Nidhi School, Kacha Dagda, to cast their votes. While the complainant and his family returned home after casting their votes, his son Rajneesh remained at the polling venue. At about 4:00–5:00 p.m., Rajneesh informed the complainant that owing to election rivalry, Daan alias Daani, Shri Chand Gautam, Kamal Saurat, Captain R.P. Prasad, the nephew of Jeetu Daani, along with 10–15 unidentified persons, had arrived at the spot, picked up a quarrel with him and threatened to eliminate him. They allegedly proclaimed that Lakhan Singla was supporting them and that they would secure victory in the election at any cost. However, the matter was pacified with the intervention of the persons present there. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 2.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that approximately two and a half hours thereafter, the complainant received information that his son had been fired upon by certain unknown assailants and had sustained a firearm injury in his chest, whereupon he was immediately shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that both the petitioners have remained in judicial custody for approximately twenty months, while the case presently stands fixed for prosecution evidence, with no immediate likelihood of conclusion of the trial. It is further argued that the FIR was initially registered against unknown assailants, whose faces were allegedly concealed by helmets or muffled with cloth, and despite such allegations, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was ever conducted during the course of investigation. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner Manish has been implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure/confessional statement allegedly recorded in another criminal case, namely FIR No. 830 of 2024, registered at Police Station Sector-58, Faridabad, wherein he himself had sustained a gunshot injury on his leg and from whom a .32 bore firearm was allegedly shown to have been recovered. It is contended that the said disclosure statement has been improperly utilised to implicate both petitioner-Manish as well as petitioner-Bharat in the present case. It is GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:4:- further submitted that no incriminating recovery whatsoever has been effected from petitioner-Manish, whereas the alleged recovery of a firearm and motorcycle from petitioner-Bharat has been falsely planted and is a matter of trial. 3.2. It is further argued that co-accused Ganeshi Lal and Parveen @ Lala have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the competent Court, primarily on account of the prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable period, thereby extending the benefit of parity to the present petitioners. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the injured witness has already been examined before the learned trial Court and had long ago been discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition. Significantly, petitioner-Manish was identified by the injured for the first time during the course of trial, which, according to the petitioners, substantially weakens the prosecution case and raises serious doubts regarding the credibility of the identification. 3.3. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners have already undergone substantial incarceration, the trial is progressing at a snail's pace, and its conclusion is not likely in the foreseeable future. Continued detention of the petitioners would, therefore, serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an unjustified curtailment of their personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioners be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 4. The custody certificates produced by the learned State counsel are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 4.1. Per contra, learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present petitions. It is contended that the mere fact that the petitioners have remained in judicial custody for over twenty months cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for enlarging them on regular bail. It is further argued that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the co-accused who have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, as the role attributed to the present petitioners is qualitatively distinct and far more serious. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner Manish is specifically alleged to have fired the shot which caused the firearm injury to the injured-Rajneesh, whereas the weapon of offence along with the motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of the crime has been recovered from the possession of petitioner Bharat during the course of investigation. In view of the specific role assigned to the petitioners, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against them, and the material collected during investigation, it is contended that they do not deserve the discretionary concession of regular bail. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book as well as the material available on record with their able assistance. 6. Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration upon the rival submissions and upon a careful appraisal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that petitioner Bharat has remained in judicial custody since 27.10.2024, whereas petitioner Manish has remained in custody GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:6:- since 11.11.2024. It is not disputed that the case is still at the stage of prosecution evidence, and the trial is progressing at a snail's pace, with no immediate likelihood of its culmination. Consequently, the petitioners have already undergone substantial incarceration, while the conclusion of the trial is likely to consume considerable time. 6.1. It is also evident from the record that the FIR was initially registered against unknown assailants, and the prosecution version itself attributes the occurrence to persons whose faces were allegedly muffled with 'Safi' or helmets at the relevant time. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during the course of investigation to establish the identity of the assailants. Significantly, the testimony of the injured witness has already been recorded before the learned trial Court, thereby substantially reducing the possibility of the petitioners influencing the prosecution evidence. 6.2. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that co-accused Ganeshi Lal and Parveen @ Lala have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 03.04.2025 and 06.03.2025, respectively, primarily on account of their prolonged incarceration and the bleak prospects of an early conclusion of the trial. Even after the grant of bail to the aforesaid co-accused, considerable time has elapsed, yet the trial has not progressed substantially and is nowhere near its logical conclusion. 6.3. The right to a speedy trial is an indispensable facet of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Continued incarceration of the petitioners for an indefinite period, when GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:7:- the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, lest it may prejudice either party during the course of trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have succeeded in making out a case for the grant of regular bail. 6.4. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:8:- present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41789-2025 (O&M) & CRM-M-100-2026 (O&M) -:9:- concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication. 7.1. Since both the present petitions arise out of the same FIR and have been disposed of by this common order, a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case for ready reference and compliance. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document