[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaivir vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
218 CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
Jaivir
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate and
Mr. Navneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
CRM-17381-2026 & CRM-17931-2026
Both these applications seeking for placing on record certain
documents stand allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application and
the documents annexed with the applications are ordered to be taken on
record.
CRM-M-18492-2026
2. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has
been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.22 dated 25.01.2025,
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
115, 351(3), 126, 103(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal.
3. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Ravi' son of Prem Chand, hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant'
only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 24.01.2025, an
incident had taken place in village Aurangabad, wherein it was found that
two cows and a calf were being transported in mini truck, and with regard to
abovementioned transportation, the FIR No. 21 dated 25.01.2025 was lodged
for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 5, 13(2) and 17
of the 'Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act', 2015 and
Section 11 of the 'Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,' 1960, in Police
Station Mundkati against 'Ravi', the driver of mini truck and 'Yousuf'.
4. As per prosecution, 'Ravi' and 'Yousuf' were thrashed by the
public and therefore, the statement of 'Ravi' was recorded wherein he had
stated that on the instructions of 'Yousuf', when he had loaded two cows
and a calf in his mini truck, and was transporting them to the village of
'Yousuf', 'Yousuf' escorted him on his motorcycle and in village
Aurangabad eight/ten persons intercepted their vehicle and thrashed them
brutally. According to complainant, he and 'Yousuf' had suffered injuries.
5. It is the case of the prosecution after the recording of
abovementioned statement, both the injured, namely 'Ravi' and 'Yousuf'
were got examined medico-legally and when 'Yousuf' passed away, because
of injuries, suffered in the abovementioned incident, FIR in question was
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the
course of investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage of the place of
occurrence, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused and was arrested on
09.03.2025.
6. The learned State Counsel 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 contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner
is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case without any
evidence. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the star
witness of the prosecution, i.e. the complainant/injured 'Ravi Kumar', has
already been examined by the learned trial Court as 'PW-1', and that the
PW-1 has not supported the prosecution case with regard to involvement of
petitioner in the commission of crime.
9. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that in the absence of deposition of PW-1, the entire case of the
prosecution is resting upon the plea that the incident was captured by a
CCTV camera. As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the
abovementioned CCTV footage although the petitioner is shown to be
present on the spot, but the CCTV footage nowhere shows that any role in
the commission of offence, active or passive, was played by the petitioner. It
has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
petitioner has clean antecedents, except one case under Excise Act, and that
in the present case, he has already faced incarceration for a period of more
than one year and one month.
10. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments.
According to learned counsel for the complainant, in the present case there
are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, with
regard to involvement in the commission of crime, and that the CCTV
footage pertaining to the instant case proves the presence of petitioner on the
spot at the time of occurrence.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that
the statement of deceased, namely 'Rashid' has been recorded as 'PW-3',
and that on the basis of video footage, the PW-3 has proved that the
petitioner was involved in the commission of crime. It has also been
contended by learned counsel for the complainant that otherwise also, the
benefit of bail has already been denied by this Court to a similarly placed co-
accused, and therefore also the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of
bail.
12. In response to abovementioned arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has contended that firstly at the time of dismissal of
petition of co-accused, namely 'Narbir @Narveer', the complete statement
of PW-3 'Rashid' was not recorded, and the video footage was not played in
the Court, and secondly, the statement of PW-3 itself shows that no active
role has been attributed to the petitioner.
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
13. The record has been perused carefully.
14. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are
the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a
decision: -
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more
than one year and one month;
ii) that except one case under Excise Act, there is no other case
pending against the petitioner;
iii) that the star witnesses of the prosecution, i.e. PW-1 'Ravi
Kumar', has not supported the prosecution case with regard to
involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime;
iv) that at the time of dismissal of bail petition of the co-accused,
namely 'Narbir @Narveer', the testimony of the PW-3 Rashid
was not complete. In his cross-examination recorded on
10.04.2026, the PW-3 has deposed that:-
"It is correct that those who have been identified by me
in the court today from among the accused persons
present in the court, are only seen standing in the videos.
It is also correct that the persons who were giving
beatings, have not been identified by me in the court from
among the accused present in the court, after seeing the
video. Volunteered that those persons are not present in
the court today."
v) that there is nothing on record to show that any active role was
played by the petitioner in the commission of crime;
vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete and
therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not
likely to serve any purpose;
ix) 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
x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
15. 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(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also
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
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
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".
16. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', (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".
17. 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
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
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".
18. 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 the accused as mandated
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
19. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
20. 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 abovementioned concession
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 to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority;
CRM-M-18492-2026 (O&M)
(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 the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
24.04.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
