Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/37539/2026 of DEEPAK @ DHONI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 23 July 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.37539 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 Deepak @ Dhoni …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Naveen Bawa, 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.
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.37539 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026
Deepak @ Dhoni …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
This is the second petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.156 dated 04.05.2019 registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat.
2. Custody certificate dated 21.07.2026 filed in Court today, is taken on record.
3. The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in CRM-M No.40084 of 2023 (Annexure P-2). However, he absented from the trial on 19.02.2025 and was produced before the Court on 08.11.2025 and is in custody since then.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence YAG DUTT 2026.07.23 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M No.37539 of 2026 -2-
from the Court for a period of about 09 months was initially on account of some mis-communication as regards the date, but subsequently, his bail was cancelled as a result of which he could not surrender before the Court for the fear of being sent into custody. He submits that the petitioner is now again in custody since 08.11.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Concededly, the petitioner had been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in CRM-M No.40084 of 2023. However, on account of the petitioner having absented from the trial on 19.02.2025, his bail was cancelled and he was finally produced in the Court on 08.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the trial Court in case, he is granted bail.
8. Keeping in view 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) July 23, 2026
JUDGE Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.23 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.