Allowed¶29

Vikrant Rana v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025CRM-M/15625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vikrant Rana v. State of Haryana; CRM-M-15625-2025; Justice Manisha Batra; regular bail granted 09.09.2025; spurious/illicit countrymade liquor; FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023; PS Mullana, District Ambala; IPC Ss. 201, 272, 308, 328, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 34; Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) Ss. 61, 63-A, 72-A; nominated on disclosure statement of co-accused Ankit @ Mogli; custody since 17.11.2023 (over 1 year 9 months 22 days); 51 witnesses none examined; parity with 08 bailed co-accused; habitual-offender objection rejected; pre-trial incarceration not replica of post-conviction sentencing; personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail: petitioner ordered to be admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

Vikrant Rana Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail: petitioner ordered to be admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, nominated on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement and in custody since 17.11.2023, deserves regular bail where none of the 51 prosecution witnesses has been examined and the trial will take considerable time to conclude. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Having already remained in custody for over 01 year, 09 months and 22 days with investigation complete and the trial yet to progress, no useful purpose would be served by the petitioner's further incarceration; pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Involvement of the petitioner in some other cases cannot be considered a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in this case.

¶29

Key takeaways

Given the nature of the allegations, the period of custody and other facts peculiar to the case, but without commenting on merits, the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail; the petition is allowed and he is ordered to be admitted to bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL (REGULAR) — High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Manisha Batra, J., oral), 09.09.2025, CRM-M-15625-2025: third regular-bail petition of Vikrant Rana allowed in case arising out of FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023, P.S. Mullana, District Ambala, registered under Sections 201, 272, 308, 328, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 34 IPC and Sections 61, 63-A, 72-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) (manufacture/supply of fake and spurious countrymade liquor at Village Dhanaura). Petitioner not named in FIR; nominated as accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused for supplying spurious/illicit liquor manufactured by accused Ankit @ Mogli and accomplices; in custody since 17.11.2023 (over 01 year, 09 months and 22 days); investigation complete; none of 51 prosecution witnesses examined; 08 co-accused already extended benefit of bail. Held: pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing; no useful purpose in further incarceration; involvement in other cases cannot be a ground for denying bail. Released on personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, without commenting on merits. Earlier petitions: first dismissed as withdrawn, second (interim bail) allowed.

¶1

CRM-M-15625-2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

231

¶5

CRM-M-15625-2025

¶6

Date of decision:09.09.2025

Vikrant Rana

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶13

Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

¶15

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

¶16

The instant one is the 3^rd petition as filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.410 dated 09.11.2023, registered under Sections 201, 272, 308, 328, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 34 IPC and Sections 61, 63-A, 72-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020), at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. One of his previous petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn whereas the second one was for grant of interim bail which was allowed.

¶17

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 premises of an old factory existing in the area of Village Dhanaura, District Ambala.

¶18

It was also informed that if raid was conducted,

¶19

HARJEET KAUR 2025.09.10 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-15625-2025

¶21

-2-

¶22

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 and Nishant Rana were arrested. The petitioner was nominated as accused on the allegations that he was involved in supplying spurious/illicit liquor manufactured by accused Ankit @ Mogli and his accomplices in the aforementioned factory. He was arrested and is in custody since 17.11.2023. Investigation stands completed.

¶23

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. He has been connected with the case on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from him. There is nothing on record to connect him with the subject crime. Out of 51 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. 08 coaccused have since been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too, deserves to be released on bail. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying him benefit of bail in this case. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶24

Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State

¶25

HARJEET KAUR 2025.09.10 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-15625-2025

¶27

-3-

¶28

counsel that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. His complicity in the crime stands established from the evidence produced on record. The trial may be expedited. The petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in some cases. There are chances of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶29

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties carefully. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in supply of spurious/illicit liquor. He was nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The trial will take considerable time. He has already remained in custody for a period of over 01 year, 09 months and 22 days. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. It is well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. Though, the petitioner is stated to be involved in some other cases but that cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. Given the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the period of custody and the other facts peculiar to this case, but without commenting on the merits of the case, it is held that the petitioner has made a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Court.

¶30

(MANISHA BATRA) 09.09.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

HARJEET KAUR 2025.09.10 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vikrant Rana v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Rana v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Singh Vs M/S Vijson Finance

Pankaj Mahajan Vs Yudhvir

Dharampreet Singh Alias Dhammi Vs State of Punjab

Barjinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Panipat Hire Purchase and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Kumar

Mohit Vs State of Punjab