CRM-M-29640-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M-29640-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 MANISH @ KALI ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Hemant Bassi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amarsh Dudeja, Advocate and Ms. Saloni Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 556 dated 23.12.2024 under Section 25 Arms Act, 103(1), 111(2) (a), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 111(6), 61 BNS,2023 (corresponding Sections 302,120-B of IPC) registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2024 at 02.40 AM, in the area of Sultanat Hotel Burjkotia District Panchkula, 2-3 unknown boys came in a car, opened indiscriminate firing and caused the death of Vineet @ Vicky, Tirth and Vandana @ Niya. The incident is stated to be gang-driven. On the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner is attributed a role in the conspiracy, namely; supply of arms, participation in recce and transfer of money and providing mobile number to the alleged shooters. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been nominated on the basis RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 14.39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-29640-2026 -2- of disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible as evidence and carry no evidentiary value. It is further submitted that the co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. The petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and he deserves the concession of regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months and 25 days. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused and there is no evidence to show that the amount transferred by the petitioner was used in the commission of crime; the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 02 months and 24 days; he is not involved in any other case; trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 14.39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-29640-2026 -3- would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 8. 8. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025, decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 09.07.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 14.39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh