CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Mahmood Aalam ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Mandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. (through hybrid mode). Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral): This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.10 dated 07.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 310(2) and 311, of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Vinay Jain’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 07.01.2025 after opening his shop when his staff was cleaning it, at about 10:36 am, four boys came to his shop, one of whom was wearing helmet and three were muffled faced. As per complainant, two of them were armed with country-made pistols and one with knife. The complainant further alleged that on gunpoint, they robbed him of 10 kg silver, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 2

Rs.2 lacs cash, 50 gms gold and 350 gems. It was also stated by the complainant that he resisted the abovementioned robbery and in that endeavour when he punched the face of an assailant, he was able to see his face and would recognize him if produced before him. 3. 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. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. She 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. 6. Heard.

7. It has been contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime petitioner, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been contented on behalf of petitioner that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and that he has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and four months. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per allegations of the prosecution, the motorcycle used in the commission of offence was recovered from the possession of petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned motorcycle does not belong to the petitioner. The learned MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this is second petition for bail, and that the first petition was not decided on merit as the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2026.

8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the present case, no test identification parade was conducted, and that except the disclosure statement of co-accused and the confessional statement of petitioner, there is no evidence showing the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has even failed to prove that the motorcycle allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner was used at the time of commission of crime. On the abovementioned grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State counsel that there are allegations against the petitioner that he was member of the gang of dacoits, and that at the time of commission of offence, he was waiting outside the shop and providing logistic and moral support to the members of the gang, who had entered the shop of complainant. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that during the course of investigation, the motorcycle being used at the time of commission of offence was recovered from the possession of petitioner along with Rs. 14,300/- of the proceeds of crime. 10. The record has been perused carefully. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 4

11. A perusal of record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year, four months and twenty three days; ii) that as per prosecution stand, the petitioner did not enter the shop of the complainant; iii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statements of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence and its credibility, as the same was recorded when the co-accused were in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statements recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact did not take place, prima facie the abovementioned statements appear to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; iv) that as per prosecution stand, the petitioner did not enter the shop of the complainant; v) that no test identification parade has been conducted in the present case; vi) that except the disclosure statements of co-accused and the confessional statement of petitioner, recorded in police custody, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 5 there is no evidence on record to show that the motorcycle was used at the time of commission of offence;

vii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused; viii) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; ix) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; x) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; xii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 12. 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) 3 SCC 22, 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 6

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”.

13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (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”. 14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 7

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”. 15. 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, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 16. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

17. 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 abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 8 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority; 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 iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court. 18. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Mahmood Aalam ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Mandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. (through hybrid mode). Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral): This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.10 dated 07.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 310(2) and 311, of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Vinay Jain’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 07.01.2025 after opening his shop when his staff was cleaning it, at about 10:36 am, four boys came to his shop, one of whom was wearing helmet and three were muffled faced. As per complainant, two of them were armed with country-made pistols and one with knife. The complainant further alleged that on gunpoint, they robbed him of 10 kg silver, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 2

Rs.2 lacs cash, 50 gms gold and 350 gems. It was also stated by the complainant that he resisted the abovementioned robbery and in that endeavour when he punched the face of an assailant, he was able to see his face and would recognize him if produced before him. 3. 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. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. She 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. 6. Heard.

7. It has been contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime petitioner, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been contented on behalf of petitioner that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and that he has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and four months. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per allegations of the prosecution, the motorcycle used in the commission of offence was recovered from the possession of petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned motorcycle does not belong to the petitioner. The learned MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this is second petition for bail, and that the first petition was not decided on merit as the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2026.

8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the present case, no test identification parade was conducted, and that except the disclosure statement of co-accused and the confessional statement of petitioner, there is no evidence showing the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has even failed to prove that the motorcycle allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner was used at the time of commission of crime. On the abovementioned grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State counsel that there are allegations against the petitioner that he was member of the gang of dacoits, and that at the time of commission of offence, he was waiting outside the shop and providing logistic and moral support to the members of the gang, who had entered the shop of complainant. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that during the course of investigation, the motorcycle being used at the time of commission of offence was recovered from the possession of petitioner along with Rs. 14,300/- of the proceeds of crime. 10. The record has been perused carefully. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 4

11. A perusal of record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year, four months and twenty three days; ii) that as per prosecution stand, the petitioner did not enter the shop of the complainant; iii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statements of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence and its credibility, as the same was recorded when the co-accused were in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statements recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact did not take place, prima facie the abovementioned statements appear to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; iv) that as per prosecution stand, the petitioner did not enter the shop of the complainant; v) that no test identification parade has been conducted in the present case; vi) that except the disclosure statements of co-accused and the confessional statement of petitioner, recorded in police custody, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 5 there is no evidence on record to show that the motorcycle was used at the time of commission of offence;

vii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused; viii) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; ix) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; x) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; xii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 12. 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) 3 SCC 22, 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 6

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”.

13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (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”. 14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 7

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”. 15. 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, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 16. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

17. 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 abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30477 of 2026 (O&M) 8 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority; 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 iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court. 18. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document