Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/49861/2026 of SUKHDEV Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026
of 2026 and CRM M-49984-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 (2) CRM M-49861 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 Sukhdev ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CRM M-49984 of 2026 Arjun ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
226 (2)
CRM M-49861 of 2026
Date of Decision: 10.09.2026
Sukhdev
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CRM M-49984 of 2026
Arjun
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present :
Mr. Rajesh Tushar, 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. This order shall dispose off two petitions, i.e., CRM M- 49861 of 2026 titled as “Sukhdev Vs. State of Haryana” and CRM M-49984 of 2026 titled as “Arjun Vs. State of Haryana”, whereby, the petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. AMIT RANA
135 dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 309(6) and 332(A) of the B.N.S. (Sections 394 and 449 of the IPC), at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the FIR in the present case was initially registered against unknown persons and there is no evidence in the FIR which even remotely connects him with the commission of the crime. The petitioners were arrested on 28th March, 2026 only on the basis of suspicion and during investigation also no incriminating evidence could be collected against them. Still further, one gold ear ring and brick hammer have been planted on Sukhdev, petitioner. Even, one gold ring and brick hammer have been planted on Arjun petitioner also. Learned counsel further submits that after completion of investigation, the challan has already been presented against them and no witness has been examined so far. Learned counsel further submits that even in the present case, the injured had suffered multiple injuries but he has already been discharged.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the petitioners are not entitled for the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel admits that there is no other criminal case against the petitioners. AMIT RANA
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. No doubt, the allegations levelled against both the petitioners are serious in nature, however, both the petitioners are stated to be in custody for the last about five months. The petitioners cannot be confined in jail as undertrial prisoners for an indefinite period since the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far and the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time.
6. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. 10.09.2026
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana
JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AMIT RANA