Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/40042/2026 of ASHU Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.40042 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Ashu …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar Advocate for the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40042 of 2026
Date of decision: 27.07.2026
Ashu
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present :-
Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kumar Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Senior DAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
*****
H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.556 dated 23.12.2024 registered under Sections 103(1) {Section 302 IPC}, 111(2)(a), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 111(6), Section 61 of BNS 2023 {Section 120-B IPC} and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2024 at 02.40 AM, in the area of Sultanat Hotel, Burjkotia, District Panchkula, 2–3 unknown boys came in a car, opened indiscriminate firing and caused the death of Vineet @ Vicky, Tirth and Vandana @ Niya. On the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Manish @ Kali, the name of the petitioner surfaced during the investigation. It is further alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Manish @ Kali, had supplied arms and ammunition to Vijay Gahlot and Sahil.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and is not named in the FIR. He further submits that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and nothing has been recovered from him. He also submits that he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 02 months and 05 days He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner which is also taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 02 months and 05 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 02 months and 05 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.
7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.
(H.S.GREWAL) 27.07.2026
JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No