CRM-M-10790-2026 -1- (214) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10790-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 MOHIT ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr.Navdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.159 dated 22.03.2024 registered under Sections 148, 149, 279, 337, 302, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 27, 29 of Arms Act at Police Station Shivaji Colony, District Rohtak. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is named in the second disclosure statement of Mukul and Anil alias Kala who himself has been named on the suspicion in the supplementary statement of the mother of the deceased which itself is based on CCTV footage of the occurrence. As per the said confessional statement, the petitioner was a conspirator. On the arrest of the petitioner, he has allegedly disclosed the place where a conspiracy was hatched to kill the deceased. Other than the JITESH LAL 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10790-2026 -2- said disclosure statement, there is no inculpatory evidence against the petitioner. As he is in custody since 03.05.2024 but none of the 48 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is one of the conspirators and had the necessary motive to commit the offence in question, though, the motive itself has not been disclosed in the disclosure statement of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. She, however admits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2024 but none of the 48 of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2026 but none of the 48 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Mohit S/o Anoop is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. JITESH LAL 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10790-2026 -3- 7. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the Trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present case. 8. If the petitioner or his family members/associates make any attempt to contact/threaten/intimidate the witnesses in the present case, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order. 9. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from the trial without sufficient cause. 10. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 23.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document