[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(121+208) CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.04.2026
HARVINDER SINGH @ HARWINDER SINGH @ KAKA
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRM-15520-2026
Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexures
P-7 to P-11 are taken on record.
CRM-M-14772-2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has
been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.302
dated 06.07.2023 under Sections 147, 148, 216, 307, 323, 325, 341, 354-B
and 506 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC (while Section 25 of Arms Act,
1959 was dropped at the time of framing charge on 28.03.2024), registered
at Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa.
2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"Statement of xxxx wife of Tarsem Singh, caste Majbi Sikh, resident of
village Bhamboor, aged about 45 years, Mobile No. 98123 92850. Stated that, I
ITHLESH KUMAR am residing at the aforementioned address and a household lady. On 05.07.2023
integrity of this order/judgment at about 9 O'clock my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh has gone to bring
CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) -2-
grocery items from the Grocery Shop in the village. Mundri son of Devi Lai,
Angrej Singh son of Ruldu Ram, Balraj son of Chinder Pal, Tony son of chadta
Singh, Jinder son of Miyan, Mammu son of Chinda Singh, Kakka son of Jamail
Singh, Mandu son of Kamail Singh, Ranjit son of Jagdish Kamboj and Baljeet
son of Hardev Singh all residents of Bhamboor armed with dandas, lathis and
sharp edged weapon were already present on the shop of Hanshu. They had come
in the car of Ranjit Kamboj. When my brother in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh
reached near the shop of Hansu, all of them started abusing him and when my
brother-in-law (Devar) started moving back to his house, they obstructed the
passage of my brother-lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons. On hearing the
noise, I and my son Manohar son of Tarsem Singh went to rescue Kripal Singh
then all of them also caused injuries to my son Manohar with danda and sharp
edged weapons and gave fist and slaps to me. Mandu son of Karnail Singh was
carrying a pistol which was seen by me. When I raised alarm, several people of
the village reached at the spot. Deepa son of Kaur Singh also gave slaps to me.
All the assailants, on seeing several people of the village reaching at the spot,
fled away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons and while going they
extended threats to kill us on the next available opportunity. After arranging the
conveyance, I along with my family members shifted my brother-in-law (Devar)
Kripal Singh and my son Manohar to Govt. Hospital, Sirsa where the doctor,
after giving first aid to my brother-in-law (Devar) and my son, issued their MLRS
from where they were referred to higher centre. Now my brother-in-law (Devar)
Kripal Singh and my son Manohar have been admitted in City Health Care
Hospital, Sirsa. Both are unconscious. You have come to the hospital. I have got
my statement recorded to you. I have heard it and the same is correct. I have got
my statement recorded in the presence of Tejvinder Singh. Action be taken
against all of them. RTI xxxx."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a generic and
omnibus statement made by the complainant. As per the allegations in the
instant FIR, when the complainant's brother-in-law Kirpal Singh had gone to
a grocery shop, he was allegedly abused and assaulted by the petitioner and
other co-accused, who also caused injuries to the son of the complainant.
However, a perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations with respect
to the specific role of inflicting injuries has been attributed to co-accused,
and not to the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that 10 other co-accused
2026.04.23 18:16 persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court on 18.01.2024,
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) -3-
18.04.2024, 10.07.2024 and 23.02.2026. Reliance in this regard has been
placed upon the bail orders i.e. Annexure P-2 to P-6. The material witnesses
have already been examined in the present FIR. It is further submitted that
there is no direct or substantial evidence on record that points towards the
complicity of the petitioner, who has already undergone an actual custody of
02 years 06 months and 28 days. There is no other case registered against
him.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the
petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has
filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As
per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02
years 06 months and 28 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions
from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were
framed on 28.03.2024 and out of total 33 prosecution witnesses, 04 (i.e. the
material witnesses) have been examined till date. He submits that in view of
the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the
concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the
observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:
"21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from
the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.04.23 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) -4-
punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22.From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention
in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of
great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that
some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending
trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
"necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in
the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect
of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that
in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty
upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if
left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
7. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record
that charges came to be framed on 28.03.2024. Yet, only 4 out of 33 cited
prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings,
thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has
already remained in actual custody for a period of 2 years, 6 months and 28
days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not
involved in any other case.
8. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and
determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the
parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration
of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the
accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of
justice.
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) -5-
9. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that
the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair
conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand
examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated
hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case
lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued
detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings
and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not
advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial,
obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a
punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the
trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the
settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as
reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that
the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) -6-
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he
is suspected.
(v) 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 police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
12. It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are
only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not
be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 23, 2026
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment
