CRM-M/13442/2026 of KOMAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 6 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 KOMAL

....Petitioner V/s STATE OF HARYANA .…Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, 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 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.262 dated 17.12.2024 registered under Sections 140(3) and 3(5) of BNS (offence under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) of BNS added subsequently) at Police Station Dhouj, Faridabad.

2. On a complaint moved by one Ashsish, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation was that on 16.12.2024, his brother Tayyab had been abducted after injuries having been caused to him. It was alleged that the wife of Tayyab namely Anisha was having illicit relations with co- accused Ravi, as a result of which, Tayyab was eliminated. The dead body of Tayyab was recovered on 21.12.2024, where after co-accused Akash was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2024 and is in custody since then.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner MANI KUMAR

has been falsely implicated. She submits that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and whereas, the alleged incident is of 16.12.2024, the dead body was recovered on 21.12.2024. She further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half years; final report stands submitted; charges stand framed vide order dated 08.07.2025 but out of a total of 35 witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined. She submits that under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that in the CCTV footage, the petitioner was also seen taking Tayyab on a motorcycle along with other accused. Learned State counsel has however, not been able to deny that after charges having been framed on 08.07.2025, no prosecution witness out of a total of 35 witnesses has been examined till date.

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

6. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half years. After investigation having been completed and final report having submitted, charges were framed as far back on 08.07.2025. Out of a list of 35 witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date. It is therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is MANI KUMAR

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.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 06, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MANI KUMAR