Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/9405/2026 of KULDEEP Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 July 2026
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9405-2026 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Kuldeep ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr.
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.
(219) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9405-2026 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Kuldeep ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). 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 in case bearing FIR No.202 dated 19.08.2025 under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), 109(1) (added subsequently) of BNS registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Taking the allegations to be correct, the offence is under Section 326 of IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. As the petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2025 but only 01 of the 14 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 bail.
3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that there is a CCTV footage showing the petitioner mercilessly beating up the complainant-Rekha. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2025 but only 01 of the 14 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 in custody since 19.08.2025 but only 01 of the 14 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, namely, Kuldeep 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. If any attempt whatsoever is made by the petitioner and/or his family members/friends to contact/threaten/intimidate any of the witnesses of the present occurrence, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order.
8. This petition stands disposed of.
9. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE July 21, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No