[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2026
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
218 CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.03.2026
Subhash
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Siddharth Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the third 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.808 dated 22.07.2023,
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341,
365, 307, 506, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar
Hisar.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Sumit @Badal', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was
stated by the complainant that on 21.07.2023, at about 11:00-11:30 pm, he
along with Sunil was sitting besides the village pond. According to
complainant, there Ajit @Jeetu, Subhash (petitioner herein), Sharwan
@Kajal, Sagar @Sahil, Sanjay, Vikram, Dilbag @Biru, Virender and 7-8
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
other persons arrived in one auto-rickshaw, and one motorcycle. According
to complainant, all the above-named assailants were armed with various
weapons including gandasi (poleaxe), Darat (sickle), and wooden batten.
3. The complainant has further alleged that immediately on the
arrival of abovementioned assailants, they launched an assault upon the
complainant and Sunil, and inflicted various injuries on their persons with
the help of their respective weapons. According to complainant, in the
abovementioned incident, both of them suffered injuries, but the injuries
suffered by Sunil proved to be fatal.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned
statement of complainant, formal FIR in this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up.
5. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. Status report has already been filed.
The same, too, be taken on record.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contented on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner, who has clean antecedents, is already in custody for a period of
more than two years and seven months, and that the trial is taking place at a
very slow pace, as out of thirty one prosecution witnesses, only seven have
been examined, so far. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the weapon of offence attributed to the petitioner is a wooden
batten, and that there is no specific injury attributed to the petitioner. It has
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that any blow,
which proved to be fatal, has not been specifically attributed to the
petitioner, and that the sharp-edged weapon was used by his co-accused
only.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, this is third
petition for bail filed by the petitioner and there is no significant change in
circumstances from the date of dismissal of former bail petition.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. 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 two years and seven months;
ii) the petitioner has clean
antecedents;
iii) that previous two petitions for bail were not decided on merits
and from the date of dismissal of 2nd petition, more than one
year and three months ago, no significant progress in trial has
taken place;
iv) that as per contents of FIR, the petitioner was not carrying any
deadly weapon at the time of commission of offence and there
is no specific allegation against the petitioner, to the effect that
the fatal blow was inflicted by him;
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
v) that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace, as out of thirty
one prosecution witnesses, only seven have been examined so
far;
vi) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession
of petitioner;
vii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not
likely to serve any purpose;
viii) 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
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate 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(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
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
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".
12. 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".
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,
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
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
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.
15. 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.
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 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
CRM-M-4145-2026 (O&M)
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose 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 the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
18.03.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
