[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026
CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
240 CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.04.2026
Virender
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Sidharth Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
This is 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.808 dated 22.07.2023, for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 365, 307, 506, 302 and
201 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Hisar.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Sumit @ Badal', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was
stated by the complainant that on 21.07.2023, at about 11:00-11:30 pm, he
along with 'Sunil' was sitting on the bank of village pond. According to
complainant, there 'Ajit @ Jeetu', 'Subhash', 'Sharwan @Kajal', 'Sagar
@Sahil', 'Sanjay', 'Vikram', 'Dilbag @Biru', 'Virender' (the petitioner herein)
and 7-8 other persons arrived in one auto-rickshaw, and one motorcycle.
According to complainant, all the abovesaid assailants were armed with
CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 2
various weapons including gandasi (poleaxe), Darat (sickle), and wooden
batten.
3. The complainant further alleged that they launched an assault
upon the complainant and 'Sunil', and inflicted injuries on their persons with
the help of their respective weapons. According to complainant, in the
abovementioned incident, both of them suffered multiple injuries, but the
injuries suffered by 'Sunil' proved to be fatal.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned
statement of complainant, formal FIR in this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.
Vishal Singh, AAG, 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.
7. Heard.
8. It has been contented on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner,
who has clean antecedents, is already in custody for a period of more than two
years and almost six months, and that the trial is taking place at a very slow
pace, as out of thirty one prosecution witnesses, only seven have been
examined so far. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the weapon of offence attributed to the petitioner is a dattar
CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 3
(sharp edged weapon), and that there is no specific injury attributed to the
petitioner. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
any blow, which proved to be fatal, has not been specifically attributed to the
petitioner, and that the sharp-edged weapon was used by his co-accused only.
9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned
arguments.
10. The record has been perused carefully.
11. 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 two years
and almost six months;
ii) that as per custody certificate the petitioner has clean
antecedents;
iii) that the trial is taking place at a snail's pace, as out of thirty one
prosecution witnesses, only seven have been examined so far;
iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession
of petitioner;
v) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not
likely to serve any purpose;
vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the
witnesses; and
CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 4
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
12. 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,
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".
CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 5
13. 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".
14. 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".
15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
CRM-M No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 6
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.
16. 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.
17. 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 No.21549 of 2026 (O&M) 7
18. 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)
JUDGE
24.04.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
