CRM-M-44421 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRM-M-44421 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Jitender alias Jeeta ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.53 dated 23.01.2025 registered under Sections 274, 275, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 61 of the Punjab Excise (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2020 and Sections 51, 52A and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, petitioner along with co-accused had supplied the fake labels and hologram for the spurious liquor bottles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged incident. He further contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since DINESH BANSAL 2025.09.09 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-44421 of 2025 -2- 28.01.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented. Further, co-accused Asjad Ahmed @ Sameer has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRM-M-22229-2025, vide order dated 11.07.2025. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petitioner, filed custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. 6. This Court is sanguine of the fact that according to the proposition settled by the Apex Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”. 7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held DINESH BANSAL 2025.09.09 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-44421 of 2025 -3- that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein- below:- "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." 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months, investigation is complete; challan stands presented, and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 09.09.2025 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2025.09.09 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh