Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs State Of Haryana on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-20887-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
246 CRM-M-20887-2026
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
SUNIL
......PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 27 dated 19.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 18, 29, 3, 3B, 4, 5, 6 & 23 the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and Section 318(4), 61, 238(C), 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.
2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Nodal Officer' (Civil Surgeon, Narnaul) who reported that from a reliable source he received a tip-off that a racket was working in the area of District Narnaul, VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.23 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20887-2026 2 which was involved in the illegal activities of sex determination tests at Kotputli (Rajasthan). According to above-mentioned complaint in order to fix the role of the members of the gang, a decoy customer was deputed to contact the gang members who settled a deal for determination of sex. As per complainant when it was found that the above said persons were involved in the above-mentioned illegal activities, they were nabbed and the FIR lodged.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.
5. Heard.
6. The record has been perused carefully.
7. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: -
i) that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than three months;
ii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused;
iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;
iv) that there is no eye-witness account of the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence;
v) that the statement of material witnesses have already been recorded, and therefore, this possibility is ruled out that the VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.23 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20887-2026 3 petitioner on being released on bail may tamper with the evidence;
vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;
vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
8. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, VIPIN KUMAR occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an 2026.04.23 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20887-2026 4 accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".
9. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another' (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".
10. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".
VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.23 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20887-2026 5
11. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
12. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 23.04.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.23 19:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document