Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 6 April, 2026
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(123)
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
MANI MAHESH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Guramrit Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short- 'BNSS'), is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.59 dated 26.06.2023, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 354, 452, 506, 148, 149 & 212 IPC, registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.
2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"Statement of Mr. Rajesh Kumar son of Mr. Rajinder Kumar resident of village Bagpur police station Haryana district Hoshiarpur age about 48 years mobile number $4171-70947 stated that I am a resident of afore-said address and employed as a senior sales officer in Chola-Mandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. On. 22.6.2023, I and my wife xxxxx son Harman Rishi were present at my house, then it would be 11.00 AM that Mani Mahesh S/o Vijay Kumar resident of Bassi Muda Police station Hariana, with a Kirpan, Karthik son of Shiv Kumar resident of Chaurial, PS Bulowal, with a Kirpan, Ravi, R/o Navi Basi Police Station Hariana with a Baseball bat and other 6/7 unidentified persons with him, whose names 1 do not know, who also had baseballs and Kirpans, forcibly opened the gate of our house. Thereafter, came inside and Mani Mahesh hit me with his Kirpan 7 times continuously with the intention of killing me, first time on the left side of my head, second time on my right leg, third time on my right hand and fourth time on my right hand. Fifth time on thumb and right wrist, sixth time on left knee and seventh time below the left knee. I shouted 'I've been killed'.SWARNJIT SINGH
My wife xxxxxx xxxx and my son Harman Rishi came forward to 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and rescue me. He hit my wife which hit the back of her left hand then integrity of this document CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -2- secondly Ravi hit my wife with his hand baseball which hit her on the left side of her forehead then again the unknown boy hit my wife with his hand baseball which hit her right side His ear and his right arm were cut off. Meanwhile, Ravi and unknown boys attacked on my wife xxxx xxxx. Then Mani Mahesh hit my son Harman Rishi with a kirpan/sword in his hand which hit him on the same right knee then Ravi hit my son with his hand baseball bat which hit him on the forehead on the left side of his head. Then, for the third time, Ravi fired his hand-held base ball at my boy, which hit him in front of the head. We shouted raised slogan Marr gaye, seeing the gathering of people, all these assailants ran away. I called my office manager, Mr. Anil Kumar Patial, son of Daljit Singh, a resident of Banjarbaj police station, Sadar Hoshiarpur, who arranged a vehicle and admitted the three of us to Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur for treatment, where Doctor prepared our medical papers. Since, the condition of my son Harman Rishi was more serious, he was referred to IVY Hospital Hoshiarpur. It is known that Mani Mahesh used to take my son around with him and after I forbade him, he entered my house by force in consultation with his friends. Due legal action should be taken against all of them who have injured me and my family with the intention of killing me and my family. SD/- Rajesh Kumar"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the complainant, leveling allegations that the petitioner along with other co-accused gave beatings to the complainant and his family members. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to establish the alleged offences against the petitioner. Rather, there is a delay of 04 days in registration of the FIR. Moreover, the injuries sought to be attributed to the petitioner have been declared simple in nature. It is further submitted that material witnesses stand examined. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody period of 02 years, 08 months and 08 days.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -3- the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 08 months and 08 days. Investigation is complete. Learned State counsel submits that the charges have been framed on 30.08.2024 and out of a total of 26 prosecution witnesses, 09 have been examined. Learned State counsel, while referring to the status report dated 23.04.2025, submits that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in 7 other cases, and while he has been acquitted in FIR No.69/2012 dated 25.08.2012 and FIR No.89/2022 dated 15.08.2022, the petitioner is on bail in FIR No.74/2023 dated 24.07.2023, FIR No.88/2015 dated 06.10.2015, FIR No.89/2019 dated 04.08.2019 and FIR No.13/2020 dated 01.01.2020.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -4- belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
7. Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the material on record.
8. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 30.08.2024. Yet, only 09 out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 02 years, 08 months and 08 days.
9. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.
10. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -5- and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.
11. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
12. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty SWARNJIT SINGH Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:- 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -6-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
14. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 06, 2026
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.04.07 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document