Abhishek vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 3813 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Abhishek vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           214                                            CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

           Abhishek

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

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Parshant Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

                                Mr. Chandramani Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is second 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.537 dated 10.10.2025 for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 351(3), 191(3), 191(2),

190, 126, 115 [Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 110 of BNS added later on) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Police Station Sector 58, Faridabad, District

Faridabad.

2. The above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of

"Manish Tayal', hereinafter being referred to as "complainant" only. It was

stated by the complainant that on 04.10.2025 at about 04:30 pm, when he was

present at his shop, six boys riding three different motorcycles arrived there

and after pushing the customers aside, attacked him with a steel rod. As per

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 2

complainant, when the assailants were trying to hit his head with a stick, in

order to save himself he put his hand on his head, and thus, suffered injuries

on his hand. The complainant further stated that when he lost conscious, the

assailants fled from the spot.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of above-

mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the

investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation,

the complainant got his supplementary statement recorded, wherein he

introduced a new story with regard to enmity with 'Kailash Chand Garg',

with whom he had a quarrel about one and a half year back. According to

prosecution, 'Kailash Chand Garg', on interrogation, suffered a disclosure

statement, wherein he nominated the present petitioner.

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.

Mr. Chandramani Kumar, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf

of respondent. He has filed the Power of Attorney. The same be taken on

record.

6. Heard.

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 3

7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is

innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per learned

counsel for the petitioner, firstly there is delay of six days in lodging the FIR,

and secondly, in the FIR, the names of any assailants do not figure. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the FIR, it was

specifically mentioned that the complainant was not having any enmity with

anybody but later on, i.e. after ten days of the incident, he suffered a

supplementary statement disclosing the name of one person, namely 'Kailash

Chand Garg', on whose disclosure statement, the petitioner has been

implicated in the present case.

8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also

contended that otherwise also, no injury, which can be termed to be dangerous

to life, was inflicted on the person of complainant, and that the identification of

petitioner as one of the assailants cannot be established as the complainant

himself has stated that at the time of incident the assailants were muffled faced.

While alleging that the disclosure statement, on the basis of which the

petitioner has been nominated, is inadmissible in evidence, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner.

9. While controverting the above mentioned arguments, the learned

State counsel has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are of

serious nature, and that the disclosure statement, suffered by co-accused,

specifically nominates the petitioner as the person responsible for the attack.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 4

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 more

than six month and eleven days;

ii) that the name of petitioner does not figure in the FIR and it has

specifically been mentioned in the FIR that the complainant

was not having any enmity with anybody;

iii) that the name of co-accused 'Kailash Chand Garg', for the first

time, had been introduced by the complainant after ten days of

incident;

iv) that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure

statement suffered by co-accused Kailash Chand, and the

above-mentioned disclosure statement of co-accused was

recorded, when he was in police custody. Thus, there is a

question mark with regard to credibility and admissibility of

above-mentioned disclosure statement in evidence;

v) that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near

future;

vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to

serve any purpose;

vii) that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the

FIR itself;

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 5

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

of petitioner;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the

petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the

witnesses; and

x) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the

petitioner will not participate/cooperate in 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

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 6

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".

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

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 7

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

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

CRM-M No.9224 of 2026 (O&M) 8

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.

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

27.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No