[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Naveen Alias Shaka vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                CHANDIGARH




                     124                                          CRM-M-5901-2026
                                                                  Date of decision: 27.04.2026
                                                                  Date of uploading: 27.04.2026



                     Naveen @ Shaka                                         ....Petitioner


                                                            V/s

                     State of Haryana
                                                                            ....Respondent



                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL




                     Present:-        Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

                                      Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

                                      Mr. Nikhil Vats, Advocate for the complainant.

                                                           *****
                     SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS

2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 44

dated 07.03.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 238(b) and 3(5) of the

BNS, 2023, at Police Station Dujana, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-5901-2026 Page |2

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the

petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:-

"To, Chowki Incharge Dighal Sir 1 request that I am Amit S/o Satbir resident of village Bhambheva and I do boring work in the village itself. Yesterday on 6-3-2025, I was sleeping at my house at night, at around 12 o'clock in the night, Bablu S/o Vinod village Bhambheva came to our house and told us that your Maternal Aunt's Son Sombir S/o Ranbir of village Bhambheva has been injured by some unknown people and he is lying in the street adjacent to his house, on receiving the information I and my aunt Kitabo s/o Ranbir's mother and uncle's son Sanjay s/o Indra reached the spot near Sombir and saw that Sombir was lying unconscious in the street covered in blood, whom we arranged a vehicle and brought to PGIMS Rohtak for treatment, some unknown person injured Sombir with the intention of killing him and ran away, legal action should be taken against him, now I have given you my application in PGIMS Rohtak, That 15-20 days ago my brother had injured his head by hitting the same with wall at our house. SD Amit Village Bhambheva 7.494970509 Action Police Today, I SI was leaving for Jhajjar Court premises for bail application when MC Chowki informed that Sombir S/O Rajveer resident Bhambheva has been admitted in unconscious condition in IPGIMS Rohtak, after which SI along with HC Jogendra 879 reached PGIMS Rohtak, where when Dr. was asked about getting the Rukkan and MLR forms done in Trauma Centre, Dr. Sahib told that Kamlesh has got the patient Rajveer admitted without MLC, for which written permission will have to be taken from the Superintendent of PGI for getting the MLC done, I SI wrote a separate application for getting the MLC done and got it approved from Superintendent (MO) Sahib and submitted it in Trauma Centre, who later told I SI along with his colleague at HC address about getting the MLC done After doing so, he reached Ward No. 6 Unit No. 4 Bed No. 50 where he wrote a separate application for obtaining the statement of the victim Sombir and submitted it, which Dr. Sahib submitted an UN FIT FOR STATEMENT to the victim, Amit S/O Satbir R/O Bhambheva was present with the victim, who

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-5901-2026 Page |3

submitted his complaint to the SI, on finding the case of offence under section 109 (1) BNS in the case of the victim, a written complaint should be filed against him, after HC Jogendra 879, the case number should be informed through the paper and the special report should be sent to the officers of the area magistrate and the FSL team should be sent to the spot, the SI along with the complainant left for the spot of incident. Today PGIMS Rohtak SD Manjeet SI P.P Dighal date 7-3-25 at 3.10 pm Today on arrival of Tahrir at Thana a case under the above offences was registered and printed copies were prepared by computer, special report of this case is being sent through E-

MAIL to the concerned officers and area magistrate for information, this case was registered in the presence of HC Aleem 58, Police Station Dujana. Copy along with original Tahrir is being sent to the personal investigator of IIC Jogendra

879."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that

the petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2025. Learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already

suffered incarceration for more than 10 months. Learned counsel has

further argued that the victim has since recovered and is in a fit medical

condition. Learned counsel has further submitted that out of 30 cited

prosecution witnesses only 4 have been examined till date. Thus, regular

bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of

affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Beri, District Jhajjar. The

same be kept on record. Learned State counsel while raising submissions

in tandem with the said status report has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in

nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-5901-2026 Page |4

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

24.04.2026, which is taken on record.

4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed

the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised

against the petitioner are serious in nature and in case the petitioner is

extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the

likelihood that he may interfere with the trial as also intimidate the

witnesses and also the FIR-complainant.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone

through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 30.05.2025 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan was prepared on 16.07.2025.

Total 30 prosecution witness have been cited, out of which only 4 have

been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will

take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the

dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs.

State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant

whereof reads thus:

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-5901-2026 Page |5

manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties

shall be gone into during the course of the trial. Nothing tangible has been

brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioners absconding

from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

As per custody certificate filed today, the petitioner has

undergone 10 months and 24 days & is shown to be involved in one more

case/FIR. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to

decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in

question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in

question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.

Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and

another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)

RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-

2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021,

and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioners in

custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-5901-2026 Page |6

7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,

in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.