Praduman Alias Kannu vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                                 1


              CRM-M-15738-2026




              243        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                  AT CHANDIGARH


                                                              CRM-M-15738-2026
                                                              Date of decision: April 21, 2026



              PRADUMAN ALIAS KANNU                                        ....Petitioner

                                             Versus

              STATE OF HARYANA                                            ....Respondents


              CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH


              Present:         Mr. Harsh Vashistha, Advocate for
                               Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.


                                     *****


              SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under

Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition

pertains to a case arising out of FIR No. 274 dated 07.05.2023, for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 307, 506, 325, 34 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Bhiwani,

District Bhiwani.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of

'Radheshyam', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated

CRM-M-15738-2026

by the above-named complainant that on 06.05.2023, when he was sitting in the

courtyard of his house, Praduman (the petitioner herein) came in front of his

house on a motorcycle. He parked his motorcycle and threatened the

complainant not to associate himself with Naresh Yadav. As per the

complainant, thereafter the petitioner picked up a pistol and fired a gun shot at

him, but he narrowly escaped from the gun shot injury. According to the

complainant, the above mentioned incident was witnessed by his wife Sanju,

mother Nirmala Devi and grandmother Saraswati.

3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned

complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As

per prosecution during the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the

petitioner. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. A perusal of the record shows that in the present case the benefit of

bail was accorded to the petitioner, but the same was withdrawn vide order dated

20.01.2024 on account of petitioner's absence.

7. Custody certificate shows that the petitioner is in custody since

22.10.2024 and his total custody in the present case is more than six months and

twenty one days.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors

which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present

petition:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and eight months, after re-arrest;

CRM-M-15738-2026

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that the investigation in this case is already complete;

iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

vi) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

10. 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

CRM-M-15738-2026

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, occasionally there is a necessity to

introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on

the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

11. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'

(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".

12. 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,

CRM-M-15738-2026

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".

13. 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 an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by

Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another'

2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

14. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,

and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

15. 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 benefit 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 from disclosing 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 trial Court.

CRM-M-15738-2026

16. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only

for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no

bearing on the merits of the case.
                                                                   (SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
              April 21, 2026                                            JUDGE
              Rts
                               Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
                               Whether reportable: Yes/No


		            