Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/20936/2026 of SACHIN KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRM-M-20936-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Sachin Kumar …Petitioner V/s State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 27.07.2026
Sachin Kumar
…Petitioner
V/s State of Haryana
…Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate, for the complainant.
*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.343, dated 27.10.2025 registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 115, 110, 126, 351(3), 61 and 117(2) (added subsequently) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
2. Custody certificate dated 25.07.2026 filed in Court today is taken on record.
3. On the statement of one Vikas Kumar, the FIR in question was registered. As per the allegations, on 25.10.2025, the said Vikas Kumar was attacked by 5/6 unknown persons with sticks as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries in the form of fractures on his arms. The complainant named the present petitioner and one Abhishek Kumar. The petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2025 and is in custody since then.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that though the injuries suffered by the complainant were grievous, they were in the form of fractures which would, at best, attract Section 325 IPC, which is a bailable offence. He submits that Section 308 IPC was added only to make the matter more serious. Learned counsel submits that there is also a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR, which shows that the allegations were levelled after due deliberations. Learned counsel submits that investigation stands completed; the final report stands submitted; charges have been framed but none of the 15 PWs has been examined as of now. He submits that in so far as the complainant is concerned, it has been reported that he lives in Canada. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances there are no chances of the complainant also being examined in the near future. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents. Still further, learned counsel contends that co-accused namely Sandeep, Dharampal and Abhishek have been granted regular bail vide order dated 03.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-32619-2026 and order dated 24.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-1837-2026 respectively. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 27 days and the trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State, as also the complainant have opposed the bail petition stating that allegations against the petitioner are very serious and in case he is released on bail, he may try to threaten and influence the witnesses and may also abscond.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. No doubt, the complainant suffered 9 injuries out of which, two were fractures on account of he having been attacked by a group of persons.
It is also true that the petitioner was named. However, the fact also remains that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 27 days. As to whether it would be a case of an attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder would be determined when the trial concludes. The complainant is stated to be settled in Canada. His examination in the near future is also, therefore, not certain. He is not appearing before the trial Court to depose. The petitioner has clean antecedents. In the considered opinion of this Court, since no witness out of 15 has been examined as of now, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. Still further, co-accused namely Sandeep, Dharampal and Abhishek have been granted regular bail vide order dated 03.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-32619-2026 and order dated 24.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-1837-2026.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE July 27, 2026 vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable
: Yes/No