Allowed¶6

Mukul @ Manjeet v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2026CRM-M/10037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-10037-2025(O&M), decided 13.01.2026 by Vinod S. Bhardwaj J. (Oral) - regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 granted on parity with co-accused Sandeep Yadav (order dated 09.12.2025 in CRM-M68356-2025); FIR No.172/2023 under Sections 302, 307, 342, 149 IPC, PS Sadar Rewari, District Rewari; hostile witness Sonu; no recovery from petitioner; second bail petition; State counsel did not dispute material distinction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned; petitioner not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶6

Mukul @ Manjeet Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No.172 dated 16.09.2023 on parity with co-accused Sandeep Yadav, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court.

¶5

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that co-accused Sandeep Yadav has already been granted regular bail by this Court (order dated 09.12.2025 in CRM-M68356-2025), and with a view to extend parity and keep the petitioner's case at par with the co-accused, the petitioner is enlarged on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶6

Key takeaways

As a condition of the bail, the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.ratio¶7
The observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case; the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail - second petition under S.483 BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.172 dated 16.09.2023, Sections 302, 307, 342 and 149 IPC, PS Sadar Rewari, District Rewari - granted on parity: co-accused Sandeep Yadav already granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 in CRM-M68356-2025; belt recovered from co-accused but no recovery from petitioner; prosecution case rested on statement of Sonu, who turned hostile; petitioner not involved in any other case - petitioner directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses - observations not an expression on merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

208

¶3

CRM-M-10037-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2026 Mukul @ Manjeet ...Petitioner

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

State of Haryan a ...Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate f or the petitioner.

¶7

Ms . Chhavi Sharma, Astt. AG, Hary a na.

¶8

¶9

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶10

Th e present second petition has be e n filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya N a garik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 fo r grant of regular bail to the petitioner in c a se bearing FIR No.172 dated 16.09.2023 registered under Sections 302, 307, 342 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sadar R e wari, District Rewari.

¶11

Le a rned Counsel appearing on beh a lf of the petitioner contends that the petition e r’s case stands on a better footi n g as compared to that of the co-accused San d eep Yadav to whom concessi o n of regular bail has already been granted b y this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in CRM-M68356-2025. H e further contends that insofar as the said co-accused Sandeep Yadav is conce r ned, recovery of a belt had bee n effected from him, whereas, no recovery of a ny nature whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner. He further cont e nds that the entire prosecution c ase is based on statement of one Sonu who has turned hostile and has n o t supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that the petitioner is no t involved in any other case. 3. Le a rned State Counsel does not d ispute the aforesaid facts or that the case o f the petitioner can be materiall y distinguished from the co-

¶12

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.14 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

¶14

208 CRM-M-10037-2025(O&M)

¶15

accused Sandeep Yadav to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in CRM-M68356-2025.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition.

¶17

In view of the facts noticed above and taking into consideration that co-accused Sandeep Yadav has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in CRM-M68356-2025, thus with a view to extend parity and keeping the case of the present petitioner at par with the co-accused, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶18

The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶19

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶20

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

¶21

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶22

13.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶23

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.14 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mukul @ Manjeet v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul @ Manjeet 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sat Pal Vs Shamsher Singh Bandan

Davinder Kumar Vs Manju Arora

Kaka Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Tripta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Another

Arun Sharma Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab