CRM-M/38871/2026 of IMAMUDDIN Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

IMAMUDDIN ….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:- Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate and Mr. Naveen, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present 1st petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 353 dated 22.07.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act (Erstwhile Section 103(1) 238, 3(5) of BNS 2023 at Police Station Saran, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Devender Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2022. Learned counsel has further urged that the prime prosecution witnesses namely Vishnu who is nonetheless of the brother of the deceased has also turned hostile. It has been further contended that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of more than 04 years and is a man with antecedents. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, hence, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 02.09.2026, in Court today, 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 22.07.2022, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua petitioner has been presented on 18.10.2022. Total 35 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that only 10 witnesses have been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. 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. 6.1

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

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.”

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the challan (upon culmination of investigation) have already been filed. The FIR-complainant, namely Vishnu have already been examined and has turned hostile, and the petitioner being a man with clean antecedents; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant petition.

The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially 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. As per custody certificate dated 02.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 years 01 months and 11 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

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 for 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