[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh Alias Budhu vs State Of Haryana on 17 March, 2026
CRM-M-11170-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
136
CRM-M-11170-2025
Decided on : 17.03.2026
KARNAIL SINGH ALIAS BUDHU
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a
criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed
hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Karnail Singh 266 11.04.2024 323, 506 r/w Indri Karnal
alias Budhu, 34 IPC, 302,
aged about 55 342 of IPC
years (added later
on) 307 of
IPC (deleted
later on)
2. FIR in the present case was registered at the instance of the
complainant - Karnailo (mother of deceased - Shubham, aged 20 years),
which reads as under:-
"I request that I am Karnailo, wife of Anil
Kumar, resident of Bibipur Jatan, district Karnal, I
have a son Shubham, aged 20 years. who works in a
private factory. Today on 11-04-2024 at 9 o'clock, my
son Shubham was taken away by Jafar son of Budhyu,
resident of Bibipur Jatan, in the street and he was
called and Jafar and his father beat my son and then
came home and threatened me and went away
threatening to kill my son and Jafar and his father beat
my son with sticks, who beat my son in the street
outside the victim's house and left him half dead and
surrounded him and left him and fled from the spot
with their sticks. When I saw my son, he was
unconscious, whom I brought to Indri hospital by
arranging a private vehicle with my brother-in-law's
son, where the doctor Sahab referred my son to
Karnal, then I took my son to Civil Hospital Karnal,
then I took my son to Kalpana Chawla from where my
son was referred to PGI, as my son's health
deteriorated, Subham was admitted to Adesh Hospital
Shahbad, please take legal action against Jafar and his
father. I have presented the photo of MLR of my son
Subham to you, Karnal 8930835751 dated 11-04-
2024."
3. On the very outset, learned State counsel has filed status
report dated 16.03.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on
record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the
file.
Copy of the same has already been supplied to counsel for
the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-
(i) From the allegations in FIR, it appears that
complainant was not an eye-witness to the assault on
Shubham (since deceased), who was admitted to the
hospital due to injuries sustained in a fight with the
petitioner's son, Bajrang Singh @ Jafar @ Vikram.
(ii) Initially, petitioner was not present at the spot
and arrived later on a bicycle. Further, petitioner was
unarmed at the time of incident, and therefore, it
cannot be presumed that he had any intention to inflict
injuries or cause the death of Shubham.
(iii) Petitioner has no prior criminal record and has
not been involved in any unlawful activities in the
past.
(iv) As per the status report dated 16.03.2026, filed
by learned State counsel, although some injuries were
allegedly caused by both father and son, but it appears
that a bamboo stick placed inside the house was used
by the petitioner's son-Bajrang Singh @ Jafar @
Vikram, to inflict the fatal blow on Shubham.
(v) In the totality of circumstances, at this stage, it
cannot be assumed that petitioner shared any common
intention to commit murder, or he acted in connivance
with his son, i.e. co-accused Bajrang Singh @ Jafar
@ Vikram.
(vi) Charges in the present case were framed on
25.11.2024, and out of total 27 prosecution witnesses,
only four have been examined, so far. Petitioner is in
judicial custody since 13.04.2024, i.e., for a period of
approximately 1 year, 11 months, and 3 days.
Thus, counsel prays that petitioner be granted the concession
of regular bail in the present case.
5. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate
dated 16.03.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag
the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the
counsel for the petitioner.
As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner
has already undergone 01 year 11 months and 03 days period inside jail
and there is no other case registered against him.
6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a specific
and active role has been attributed to the petitioner along with his co-
accused. It is contended that petitioner, along with the co-accused, with a
common object, caused serious injuries to the deceased with a danda and
ultimately, murdered him.
Learned State counsel further submits that trial in the present
case is still ongoing and material prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined. In such circumstances, it is apprehended that if the petitioner
is enlarged on bail, he may influence the prosecution witnesses or
abscond from the process of law.
Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, it is
submitted that petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail,
and present petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel
for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it.
8. From the status report dated 16.03.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, it emerges that CCTV footage, coupled with the
allegations in the FIR, indicates that it was the co-accused-Bajrang Singh
@ Jafar @ Vikram, who had called Shubham (since deceased) outside the
house, while petitioner arrived later on a bicycle, unarmed and without
holding any weapon. Therefore, the exact nature and extent of the
petitioner's culpability require thorough determination after adducing the
complete evidence before the trial court.
In view of the above, this Court does not find any substantial
reason to continue further detention of the petitioner inside jail, as the
same would not serve any meaningful purpose for the prosecution.
9. Considering the totality of circumstances, nature of
allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here
above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular
bail to the petitioner in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief
Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not
required in any other case.
10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
11. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
12. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
17.03.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
