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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second regular bail petition allowed; petitioner Vishal to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds of two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with liberty to that Court to cancel bail on breach of conditions; pending application, if any, rendered infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in continuous custody since 03.11.2022 in FIR No. 858 dated 03.11.2022 (Sections 307/34 IPC, Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, 1959; 120-B IPC later added) and facing a trial likely to take time, should be released on regular bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Given the petitioner's custody since 03.11.2022, the time the trial will take, and the other stated facts, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose; accordingly the bail petition is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's involvement in another case cannot be considered a reason for denying him the benefit of bail.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety bonds of two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court; on failure to abide by these conditions, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted (Punjab & Haryana High Court, Manisha Batra J, oral order, 17.07.2025) in CRM-M-4310-2025, the second bail petition of Vishal, an under-trial accused since 03.11.2022 in FIR No. 858 dated 03.11.2022 of PS Old Industrial Panipat, District Panipat (Sections 307 and 34 IPC, Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, 1959; Section 120-B IPC added later), arising from an alleged robbery of a liquor vendor and armed assault (gandasi blow) on police officials on the night of 02.11.2022; previous petition CRM-M-374172023 had been dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2024. Held: (i) the petitioner's involvement in another case (snatching/extortion) cannot be a reason for denying the benefit of bail; (ii) as the trial will take time to conclude, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Petition allowed; release ordered on personal bond and surety bonds of two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court, which retains liberty to cancel bail on breach; pending application, if any, rendered infructuous.

CRM-M-4310-2025

1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 CRM-M-4310-2025 Date of decision: 17^th July, 2025

Vishal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 858 dated 03.11.2022 registered under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act, 1959 (Section 120-B of IPC added later on) at Police Station Old Industrial Panipat, District Panipat. His previous petition CRM-M-374172023 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.03.2024.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant-Constable Jagdeep Singh, CIA-2, Panipat alleging that on the night of 02.11.2022, he was present at Police Station, Old Industrial Area, Panipat, when an information was received that some youths had robbed a liquor vendor existing in the Kaccha-Fatak area. On hearing so, the complainant, along with other police officials, rushed for searching the robbers. When they reached near Gas Godown Road, four

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.18 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-4310-2025

2-

youths were found riding on a Splendor bike in a suspicious condition. They were tried to be stopped. The complainant started questioning them and then all of them, while proclaiming that the police officials should also be taught a lesson, they pointed a weapon towards Constable Ajit. The complainant tried to apprehend those youths with the help of Constable Nishant, however, one of those youths, struck a blow with a gandasi on the head of Head Constable Madan. The complainant rushed for his rescue and then all the assailants fled from the spot after leaving from bike. The injured police official was rushed to the hospital. The aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement, admitting his involvement in the crime and also disclosed the names of the co-accused who were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been in custody since 03.11.2022. Trial is likely to take time to conclude. No injury had been attributed to him. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

Reply has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender as he is involved in one more case of snatching and extortion. There are chances of his committing similar offences again, if extended benefit of bail. He was an

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.18 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-4310-2025

3-

active participant and had caused serious injuries to the victim. One of the injuries sustained to be dangerous to life. Therefore, it is, argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

The petitioner, along with the co-accused, is alleged to have assaulted the complainant and other police officials when they were trying to apprehend them on the fateful night. The petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2022. He is on bail in another case registered against him. His involvement in another case cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. Trial will take time to conclude. Keeping in view all these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds of two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. On his failure to abide by any of these conditions, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]

JUDGE

17^th July, 2025

Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned

2. Whether reportable

: Yes / No : Yes / No

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.18 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document