CRM-M-25821-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-25821-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:17.07.2026 Ravish Kumar @ Monu Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. S.S. Jattan, Advocate and Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023, registered under Sections 201, 272, 308, 328, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 34 IPC (Section 188 of IPC stands deleted) and Sections 61, 63- A, 72-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020), at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. 2. As per the allegations, on 09.11.2023, a secret information was received by the complainant SI Karam Chand to the effect that the accused Kapil Pandit and Ankit @ Mogli along with other accomplices were involved in manufacturing fake/spurious countrymade liquor in the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25821-2026 (O&M) -2- premises of an old factory existing in the area of Village Dhanaura, District Ambala. It was also informed that if raid was conducted, they could be apprehended while manufacturing illicit liquor. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was immediately formed which reached at the informed place and recovered some burnt empty liquor bottles, six bottles of fake liquor, wrappers having written “Taaza Malta”, one electric machine of liquor making and several big as well as small plastic drums and one drum having fevicol and 90 empty plastic bottles. All these articles were taken into custody. The aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The co- accused Uttam Singh, Puneet, Ankit, Nishant Rana and Kapil Sharma were arrested. Accused Kapil Sharma on his arrest, suffered disclosure statement, on the basis of which the present petitioner along with some other persons were nominated as accused. Accused Yuvraj Singh @ Manu was arrested on 28.01.2024. He too suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he along with the present petitioner and other accused used to supply spurious liquor. The petitioner, who was found to be in custody in some other case, was joined into investigation of this case on 16.03.2024. He suffered disclosure statement, pursuant to which, he demarcated the place where spurious liquor was prepared in a factory. Investigation qua him stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25821-2026 (O&M) -3- evidence. He is in custody for a period of more than 02 years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 10 out of 58 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. All other co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. His Involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and his antecedents, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been involved in supply of spurious liquor, which took toll of several lives. As per allegations, he used to affix forged labels/stickers on spurious liquor. He was nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused. The inference as to the extent of participation of the petitioner in the commission of subject offences can conclusively be drawn only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner may abscond, if extended benefit of bail. As such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25821-2026 (O&M) -4- during trial and it cannot be punitive or preventive. 7. In view of the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall, however, keep the trial Court informed about any change in his residential address and his mobile number. He will keep his mobile phone active round the clock. He will also remain present before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as misuse of the concession of bail. Similarly, if the petitioner is found involved in any other case of similar nature, that will amount to misuse of concession of bail and in that event, it shall be open to the State to apply for cancellation of bail without further reference to this Court. 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. 9. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 17.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document