[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Happy Alias Kasi vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M No.11583 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225
*****
CRM-M No.11583 of 2026
Date of decision : 21.4.2026
Date of uploading : 22.4.2026
Happy alias Kasi .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.150 dated 22.5.2022 under
Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302, 341 of the IPC and Section 25(1-
B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 (Section 42 of Prisons Act, Sections 25/29 of
Arms Act and Sections 212, 201 and 34 of IPC added later on), registered
at Police Station Bass, District Hansi.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the on 22.05.2022,
information was received at the Police Station that two persons had been
shot on Puthi-Bedwa Road near Village Puthi. Upon receiving the
information, SI Nawal Singh, along with ASI Ramesh Chander, EHC
Bijender, and Constable Baljeet, proceeded to the spot in official vehicle
No.HR-21P-4465 driven by Constable Vinod Kumar. At the scene, the
dead body of one person was found seated in the driver's seat of WagonR
Car No.HR-46D-7105. Several empty and live cartridges were recovered
from the spot. Approximately three acres away from the first location,
towards Village Puthi, another dead body was found lying on the
roadside, with empty cartridges recovered nearby. Photographs of the
scene were taken using a mobile phone. Mobile phones recovered from
the deceased helped establish their identities as residents of Village
Nindana.
Upon receiving information, the relatives of the deceased
reached the spot. Ranbir, father of deceased Amit, gave his statement
stating that he had two sons, namely Amit and Ankit. He further stated
that about one month earlier, Sandeep @ Dharti, Chand, Monu, Ashok @
Shoki, and their associates had fired at his son Amit at the village liquor
vend. On 22.05.2022, his son Amit @ Gabdu had gone to Village Pali
along with his friend Sandeep in WagonR Car No.HR-46D-7105 for
medical treatment. While returning from Village Pali, they were allegedly
waylaid by Ashok @ Shoki and 5-6 other persons, who opened
indiscriminate fire on them. Sandeep died at the spot, while Amit
attempted to escape by getting out of the car and running away. However,
the assailants chased him, shot him, and he died at the scene. Ranbir
further stated that his family had previous enmity with Sandeep @ DC
(petitioner herein) and Ashok, and alleged that on the instructions of
Sandeep @DC (petitioner herein), Ashok and others had shot dead his son
Amit and his friend.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 1.7.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has further submitted that the principal accused namely Sandeep
alias DC has been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 4.2.2026 passed in CRM-M No.45287 of 2024. Learned
counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution
version is taken to be correct, the prime role attributed to the petitioner is
of supply the fire arm(s), which has been used for committing the offence
in question. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit
of Devender Nain, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaund,
District Hansi dated 29.3.2026. The same is on record. Raising
submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel
has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are
serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession
of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record
custody certificate dated 20.4.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 1.7.2025 and is in continuous
custody since then. Upon culmination of investigation; challan was
presented qua the petitioner on 11.9.2025. Total 61 prosecution witnesses
have been cited but only 4 have been examined till date. It would be
apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024;
relevant whereof reads as under:-
"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective
of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency
as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution."
6.1 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues
which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court
does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at
this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been
brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding
from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.2 As per custody certificate dated20.4.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 9
months and 21 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is
stated to be involved in 5 more cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents
of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular
bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground
sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of
regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
21.4.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
