CRM-M/22486/2026 of NARENDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 7 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 07.07.2026

Narender

…Petitioner

V/s State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.145, dated 19.03.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) (corresponding Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC) at Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal.

2. Status report along with custody certificate filed by learned State counsel in Court today is taken on record.

3. On a complaint submitted by one Girdhari, the FIR in question was registered. The brother of the complainant namely Attar Singh @ Biltan was found dead at the residence of one Ritesh on 18.03.2025. It was alleged that on enquiry, the complainant had come to know that Attar Sigh who was residing in the house of Ritesh had been killed by one Jagdish and his friends (not named) by inflicting injuries upon him under the influence of liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated. He further states that both alleged eye witnesses namely Ritesh and Brijesh have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the complainant Girdhari is not appearing to give his statement despite repeated summons. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2025; only 3 witnesses have been examined out of a total of 17 witnesses; the trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State has opposed the bail petition and has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and in case he is released on bail, he shall try to threaten and influence the remaining witnesses and may also abscond.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Concededly, the petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2025. A period of 1 year, 3 months and 15 days has gone by. Two persons i.e. Ritesh and Brijesth who were stated to be eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have stated that three persons had come to the residence of Ritesh out of which, one was Attar Singh and all three were under the influence of liquor. The complainant Girdhari is not appearing despite repeated summons. Out of 17 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined as of now. The trial will, therefore, take a sufficiently long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

8. In view of 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)

JUDGE July 07, 2026 vcgarg

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No