Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/37768/2026 of MANDEEP KUMAR @ MANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 17 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37768-2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Mandeep Kumar @ Mandeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ravi Swami, Advocate for Mr. Punya Veet, Singh,
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.
::1::
(227) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37768-2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Mandeep Kumar @ Mandeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ravi Swami, Advocate for Mr. Punya Veet, Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the complainant. **** 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.39 dated 29.01.2026 under Sections 191(2), 109, 190, 61 of BNS (Sections 307, 147, 149, 120-B IPC) registered at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an identically situated co-accused namely Ravi Kumar has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2026 passed in CRM-M- 31187-2026. As the petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2024 but none of the 15 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 has not disputed the factual assertion that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury, that he is in VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.17 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
::2:: custody since 14.03.2024 and that none of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and therefore, he is not entitled to the concession as prayed for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2024 but none of the 15 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, moreso, when the co- accused of the petitioner namely Ravi Kumar has been granted the concession of regular bail.
7. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Mandeep Kumar @ Mandeep Singh 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.
8. This petition stands disposed of.
9. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE July 17, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.17 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document