Allowed

Manish v. State of Haryana

Regular bail – Section 483 BNSS

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2026CRM-M/23049/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second regular bail plea under Section 483 BNSS in a FIR for murder and related BNS offences, the petitioner being charged only with harbouring accused and supplying a phone. Considering prolonged incarceration, minimal role, unlikelihood of early trial completion and speedy-trial principles, the court allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds, subject to three conditions (no inducement/threats, furnish address, no leaving India without permission).

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

¶1

CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

238 CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 26.05.2026

Manish

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶14

This petition is the second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.168 dated 11.06.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 351(3), 61(2) and 249 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 302, 34, 506, 120-B and 212 of Indian Penal Code, 1860] and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Chandhat, District Palwal.

¶15

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Vedpal’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that his nephew Mohit was a driver by profession at Faridabad and that he used to commute between his native village and

¶16

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.05.27 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

Faridabad everyday on motorcycle. As per complainant on 11.06.2025 at about 07:00 A.M., Mohit had left home for Faridabad and was present at Alawalpur bus stand. According to complainant there, two boys riding on a motorcycle came, shot Mohit and fled away from the spot.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation the persons who were involved in shooting, i.e. Akku @Avkash and Ajay were arrested.

¶21

As per prosecution the abovenamed two accused suffered their respective disclosure statement wherein they revealed that the mobile phone to the accused Akku @Avkash was provided by the present petitioner and that he had also provided them shelter after the commission of offence. Thus, the petitioner has been prosecuted for the commission of offence under Section 249 read with Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶22

The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

¶23

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance and filed Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of complainant. The same, too, be taken on record.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The record has been perused carefully.

¶26

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.05.27 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M)

¶28

¶29

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are

¶30

the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a

¶31

decision:-

¶32

i. that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 10 months and 28 days;

¶33

ii. that the first petition for bail was not decided on merits;

¶34

iii. that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had provided a mobile phone to one of the accused namely Akku @Avkash, and harboured them;

¶35

iv. that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is imprisonment up to 5 years;

¶36

v. that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶37

vi. that although the petitioner is involved in multiple cases but the abovementioned cases are not relevant in view of the principles laid down in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2020 (11) SCC 648;

¶38

vii. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of 32 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far;

¶39

viii. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶40

ix. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶41

x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶42

xi. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

¶43

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.05.27 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M)

¶45

¶46

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

¶47

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of

¶48

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.05.27 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M)

¶50

¶51

Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

¶52

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

¶53

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,

¶54

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.05.27 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

CRM-M-23049-2026 (O&M)

¶56

¶57

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶58

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶59

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:-

¶60

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

¶61

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

¶62

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶63

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

¶64

26.05.2026 Vinod

¶65

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶66

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.05.27 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manish v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh Alias Shinda Vs State of Punjab

Sagar Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Inderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Kajal Rani Vs State of Punjab