Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/37744/2026 of SANDEEP @ TINDA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026
take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be -3- served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7.
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.
Chandigarh
will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be
Chandigarh
served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner is in custody for the last 04 years 05 months and 24 days. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. The complainant-Jagdish, his son Sandeep and one Narender who is the cousin of deceased Rohtash, have duly stepped into the witness box but have not supported the case of the prosecution and have stated in so many words that they are not aware as to who had committed the murder of Rohtash. There is no scientific evidence which could have connected the petitioner to the offence. Out of 22 witnesses, 15 have been examined. The trial shall, therefore, take a sufficiently long time to conclude. Under the circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
8. Rekha
Chandigarh