[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Naresh vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M) 1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           225                                             CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                           Date of Decision: 24.04.2026

           Naresh

                                                                              ......Petitioner
                                                  Versus
           State of Haryana
                                                                              ...... Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. P.S.Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with
                                Ms. Nitika Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Ms. Deepali Verma, 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.71 dated 30.03.2026, for the commission of

offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 329(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sector-53 Gurugram.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being on a complaint

submitted by the Executive Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran,

Gurugram, hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. In the

abovementioned complaint, it was reported by the complainant that several

shanties were constructed on the government land and the petitioner was

forcibly extorting money at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in the name of

rent from the occupants of the above mentioned shanties. It was also reported

that when the officials of HSVP approached those persons, they disclosed that

CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M) 2

they were subjected to extortion of above mentioned money and it was

threatened by the petitioner that if they shifted to any other place, or refused to

pay money, they would face dire consequences.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned

statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms.

Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.

Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. She 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.

6. Heard.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. 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 twenty

four days;

ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission

of offence is imprisonment up to 7 years;

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

CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M) 3

of petitioner;

v) that the investigation and trial of this case are not likely to be

concluded in near future;

vi) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not

likely to serve any purpose;

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; and

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

9. 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

CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M) 4

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".

10. 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".

11. 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

CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M) 5

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".

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

CRM-M No.21165 of 2026 (O&M) 6

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;