Vijay Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Vijay Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: petitioner to be released on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, bound by seven enumerated conditions (no misuse of liberty; no tampering with evidence; attendance at trial; no fresh offence; passport deposit; cellphone number to IO/SHO; no delay of trial), with liberty to the State/complainant to move for cancellation of bail upon breach or other sufficient cause; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed off.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in FIR No.329 dated 27.04.2023 (Sections 147, 149, 307, 323, 506 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station HTM, District Hisar), given his custody since 29.04.2023 exceeding two years. +1 more

Court's answer

Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, subject to additional conditions: no misuse of liberty; no tampering with oral or documentary evidence; no absence on any trial date; no commission of offence while on bail; deposit of passport, if any, with the trial Court; furnishing cellphone number to Investigating Officer/SHO without changing it without prior permission; and no attempt to delay the trial.

Ratio / Principle

With 14 prosecution witnesses cited and only 07 (including the injured) examined, and nothing tangible brought forward to indicate likelihood of the petitioner absconding or interfering with prosecution evidence, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Key takeaways

Involvement in other FIR(s) cannot be a ground sufficient by itself to decline regular bail in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua that FIR by ratiocinating upon its facts/circumstances.ratio¶¶28
The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be gone into during the course of trial; the Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into them at this stage lest it prejudice the trial.obiter¶¶27
In case of breach of the imposed bail conditions or those imposed by the CJM/Duty Magistrate, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted — CRM-M-4249-2025, decided September 23, 2025 (Sumeet Goel, J., oral): Petitioner Vijay (referred to in the FIR narration as Vijay Bajad), in custody since arrest on 29.04.2023 — 02 years, 04 months and 23 days as per custody certificate dated 22.09.2025 — in FIR No.329 dated 27.04.2023, Police Station HTM, District Hisar, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 323, 506 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, ordered released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, subject to conditions (no misuse of liberty; no tampering with evidence; attendance at trial; no fresh offence; deposit of passport; cellphone number to IO/SHO; no delaying of trial), with liberty to the State/complainant to seek cancellation on breach. Held: (i) involvement in other FIR(s) cannot by itself be a sufficient ground to decline bail when a case is made out on the facts of the FIR in question, relying on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (SC), Sridhar Das (Calcutta HC, DB), Akhilesh Singh and Balraj (P&H HC); (ii) with only 07 of 14 prosecution witnesses (including the injured) examined and nothing tangible showing likelihood of absconding or interference with evidence, further detention as an undertrial is not warranted; rival contentions left to the trial; nothing said is an expression of opinion on the merits.

1

CRM-M-4249-2025

226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-4249-2025

Date of decision: September 23, 2025

Vijay

….Petitione r

versus

State of Har y ana

….Responden t

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: - Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate a nd Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, D A G Haryana.

*********

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed u nder Section 439 of the Code o f Criminal Pr o cedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’)/ Section 483 of the Bharatiy a Nagarik Sur a ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ B NSS’) for grant of regular bai l to the petitio n er in case bearing FIR No.329 dated 27.04.2023, registered fo r the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 307, 323, 506 of the India n Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Se c tion 25 of the Arms Act, 195 9 (for short ‘A r ms Act’), at Police Station HT M , District Hisar, Haryana. 2. The gravamen of the allegation s against the petitioner is that th e complainant , namely, Bijender, stated that o n 26.04.2023, at around 10:1 5 p.m., his yo u nger brother, Rahul, had gon e on his motorcycle to Kesha v Cream Dair y , Vinod Nagar Mill Gate. T here, Vijay Bajad (petitione r

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.23 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

2

CRM-M-4249-2025

herein), Anil Bajad, Sandeep @ Dipra, Manoj @ Mauja, Gholu Bachhi @ Ajay Nayak, Vikas Goyal, and 5–6 other persons allegedly attacked Rahul. Sandeep slapped Rahul, while Vijay (petitioner) grabbed him by the neck. In self-defense, Rahul reportedly slapped Sandeep. Thereafter, Sandeep allegedly took out a pistol and shot Rahul in the leg. Anil Bajad is said to have exhorted everyone present to kill Rahul. Subsequently, Vijay Bajad (petitioner) allegedly fired a pistol at Rahul, hitting him in the stomach, causing him to fall down. Vijay Bajad (petitioner) then fired shots in the air and threatened that anyone who dared to confront them would be killed.

The complainant further alleged that Rahul called him and narrated the entire incident over the phone. He then brought Rahul first to Civil Hospital, Hisar, and subsequently to Sapra Hospital, Hisar. The complainant alleged that about one and a half years prior, there had been an altercation with Sunil regarding the sale of liquor, and that Vijay Bajad (petitioner), Anil Bajad, Sandeep Bajad, Golu @ Bachhi @ Ajay, Manoj @ Mauja, Vikas Goyal, and 5–6 others, at the behest of Raja Gujjar and Sunil Rawat, attempted to murder his brother by firing shots at him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is going on at a slow pace and the injured already stands examined as prosecution witness. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail has been prayed for.

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.23 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

3

CRM-M-4249-2025

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.09.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29.06.2023. It is not in dispute before this Court that total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and out of which, only 07 (including the injured) have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 22.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 04 months and 23 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.23 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

4

CRM-M-4249-2025

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.23 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

5

CRM-M-4249-2025

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous

application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

September 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

Yes/No

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.23 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment