Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/26317/2026 of SUMIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 23 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26317-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 SUMIT ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sarun Hans, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
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.
CRM-M-26317-2026 -1-
(218) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-26317-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 SUMIT ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sarun Hans, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.34 dated 30.01.2026 registered under Sections 13(1), 13(2), 17(1) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan Avam Gausamvardhan Act at Police Station City, Tohana, District Fatehabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner was transporting the animals for the purposes of slaughter. He is otherwise, first-time offender, in custody since 30.01.2026 but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. JITESH LAL 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-26317-2026 -2-
3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession of bail. She, however, concedes that the petitioner is a first- time offender, in custody since 30.01.2026 but none of the 11 of the 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 shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is a first-time offender, in custody since 30.01.2026 but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of 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-Sumit S/o Mati Parshad Chauhan is ordered to be released on bail 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 23.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document