Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/50315/2026 of VIRENDER ALIAS BHOLA ALIAS VEERENDRA SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 11 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50315-2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 Virender @ Bhola @ Veerendra Singh …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate with Ms. Dolly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50315-2026
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026
Virender @ Bhola @ Veerendra Singh
…Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana
…Respondent
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present :
Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate with
Ms. Dolly Shivani, Advocate and
Mr. Dipanshu Kapur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
N.S.Shekhawat 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 petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/439 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.73 dated 18.03.2024 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of IPC (Section 307 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged incident had taken place on 16.03.2024, whereas, the FIR in the present case was got registered by the complainant on 18.03.2024 and even during the course of investigation, the delay in registration of the FIR could not be explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the HEMLATA
petitioner has been wrongly arrested in the present case on 10.01.2026 and is in custody for the last about 08 months. He further referred to the MLRs of Vikas and Mahipal (Annexures P-2 and P-3) to contend that both the injured had suffered minor injuries and even from the medical opinion (Annexure P-5), the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the present petitioner. He further submits that the injured, namely, Vikas, Mahipal and Biro Devi have already been discharged from the hospital and are hale and hearty. Learned counsel further submits that after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented against him and the case is listed before the trial Court on 08.10.2026 for framing of charges. Consequently, the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. However, he admits that the petitioner was not involved in any other case in the past.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the present case, three injured, namely, Vikas, Mahipal and Biro Devi had suffered injuries at the hands of the present petitioner and his co- accused. However, all the injured have already been discharged from the hospital. Moreover, the trial has not even formally commenced against the HEMLATA
petitioner. Thus, the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose.
6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 11.09.2026
JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA