CRM-M/42943/2026 of SANDEEP Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-42943-2026

Sandeep ….Petitioner Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Date of Uploading:05.09.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:- Ms. Monita Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.19 dated 17.1.2025 under Sections 103(1), 238(A) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 111(2)(1), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 111(6), 61(2) and 253 of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal.

2. The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Banita @ Mofida Khatun.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while iterating the cause of the petition, has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 25.2.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the prime prosecution witnesses namely, Jogi Ram (FIR-complainant), mother of the deceased and Siraj Ali (relative of the deceased) have already been examined and the petitioner, in any case, is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Thus, regular bail is prayed for

4. Learned State counsel had filed reply dated 22.08.2026 by way of affidavit of Rohtash Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalayat, in Court today. The same is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the conspiracy and subsequent committing of the crime. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is likely to abscond in case he is extended the concession of regular bail. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 02.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 25.2.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was filed on 16.5.2025. Total 51 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 4 have been examined till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam

Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” 6.1 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.2

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the petitioner being in custody for a period of 01

year, 07 months and 04 days, prime prosecution witnesses having already been examined, trial is not likely to culminate in near future, the petitioner not having any motive to commit the murder in question; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 03.09.2026 Kamal Gandhi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No