Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/28897/2026 of KRISHAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026
(O & M) ::1:: (222) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28897-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Krishan ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Reetesh Kumar, Advocate for the
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::
(222) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28897-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Krishan ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Reetesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.253 dated 09.07.2025 under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS (corresponding Sections 307, 323, 325, 506 and 34 of IPC) and Sections 181 and 192(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that taking the allegations to be correct, no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner.
::2:: The injury attracting Section 307 IPC (Section 109(1) BNS) on the head of the victim-Sombir has been attributed to Himanshu alias Chinta. As the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 but none of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail.
3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that all the accused including the petitioner, assaulted the injured-Sombir, who is presently not in a fully fit mental or physical condition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle to the concession as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the injury on the head of Sombir has been attributed to Himanshu @ Chinta and that the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 but none of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 but none of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Krishan is ordered to be released on bail
::3:: subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE July 28, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No