[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen @ Parveen Kumar @ Basu vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M No.22716 of 2026 (O&M)1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236 CRM-M No.22716 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.04.2026
Parveen @ Parveen Kumar @ Basu
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Rohit Mittal, 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.173 dated 29.08.2025, for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 115, 140(3), 190, 191(2), 333, 351(2) and
61, [Section 111(1) added later on, but charges were framed under Sections
115(2), 140(3), 190, 191(2), 333, 351(2) and 61(2)] of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 2023, Police Station City Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Vijay', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the
above-named complainant that on 28.08.2025 at about 10:00 pm, a black
coloured Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.HR-19R-9732, belonging to
'Rahul @Gole', carrying five persons, namely 'Aman', 'Krishna', 'Manjeet
@Baniya', 'Praveena @Basu' (the petitioner herein) and 'Amit' came to his
hotel. The complainant further stated that three persons alighted from the car
CRM-M No.22716 of 2026 (O&M)2
and demanded ransom. As per complainant they forcibly snatched Rs.6000-
7000/- from the pocket of complainant and thrashed him with slaps and
punches. It was also alleged by the complainant that with the intention to
kidnapping him, they all attempted to forcibly dragged him out of the hotel,
and that he was let-off only when he assured to pay them ransom every month.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned
complaint 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and
that the CCTV footage of the incident is available, wherein the entry of the
petitioner in the hotel is not visible. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, instead of petitioner three other persons are visible in CCTV footage
and thus, this claim of the prosecution stands falsified that petitioner was
involved in the incident of thrashing or kidnapping of the complainant.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned
arguments. According to learned State Counsel, there are very specific
CRM-M No.22716 of 2026 (O&M)3
allegations, supported with eye-witness account, against the petitioner that he
was involved in the commission of crime, and that the confessional statement
suffered by the petitioner supports the prosecution case.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. 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 almost
eight months;
ii) that as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner is not visible in the CCTV footage;
iii) that no weapon of offence was allegedly used by the petitioner
at the time of commission of crime, and therefore, no weapon
has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;
iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete, as the
challan has been filed by the Investigating Agency. Thus,
nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of
petitioner;
v) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up 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;
CRM-M No.22716 of 2026 (O&M)4
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
11. 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.22716 of 2026 (O&M)5
12. 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".
13. 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".
14. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
CRM-M No.22716 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.22716 of 2026 (O&M)7
17. 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
29.04.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
