CRM-M/37804/2026 of MALKEET SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 20 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 122 dated 29.05.2026, registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 324, 341, 148, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), with Section 118(2) BNS (corresponding to Section 326 IPC) having been added subsequently, at Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind, Haryana.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 28.05.2026, ASI Mahender Singh received information that one Kamaljeet Singh had been admitted to the Government Hospital, Safidon, after sustaining injuries in

-:2:- a quarrel. Upon reaching the hospital, the Investigating Officer learnt that the injured had been referred to a private hospital at Panipat owing to the seriousness of his condition. The Investigating Officer contacted the victim's uncle, who informed him that the victim had suffered grievous injuries at the hands of 8–10 persons and that the family was preoccupied with his medical treatment. On the following day, i.e. 29.05.2026, the complainant, Punjab Singh, uncle of the victim, appeared before the police and submitted a written complaint along with the medico-legal reports.

2.1. It was alleged that the victim, a 17-year-old school-going student, had accompanied the complainant to the agricultural fields during the summer vacation. At about 6:30 P.M., the victim allegedly received repeated telephone calls from co-accused Yuvraj Singh, who requested him to come to his residence. With the complainant's permission, the victim proceeded on his motorcycle. At about 6:53 P.M., the victim allegedly telephoned the complainant stating that co-accused Yuvraj Singh, his uncle, namely Malkeet Singh (the present petitioner), Harvinder Singh, Gxx Sxx, and 5–6 other persons had intercepted him near the Hansi Branch Canal and had assaulted him with sharp-edged weapons, causing serious injuries. Acting upon the said information, the complainant immediately rushed to the spot and found the victim lying unconscious in a pool of blood, whereafter he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion.

3. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

-:3:-

3.1. Learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations disclose the commission of a serious and violent offence involving a concerted assault upon the victim with deadly weapons. It is contended that the petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence and his complicity is borne out from the material collected during investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that, considering the gravity of the accusations and the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance.

5. Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the offences alleged are triable by the Court of the learned Magistrate. It is also not disputed that no grievous injury has been specifically attributed to the present petitioner, and his alleged role is distinguishable from that of the principal assailants. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 08.06.2026, and it has not been shown that his further custodial detention is required for the purpose of investigation.

5.1. Presentation of challan and conclusion of trial will take long time. The right to a speedy trial constitutes an integral facet of the

-:4:- guarantee enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the investigation stands concluded qua him.

5.2. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either side during the course of trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

-:5:- iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the

-:6:- trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

7. By virtue of the final determination of the main cause, all pending interlocutory and ancillary applications stand automatically disposed of. The final adjudication of the core controversy has effectively extinguished the substratum of these pending applications, rendering them infructuous and precluding the need for separate judicial intervention or formal orders.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 20.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No