CRM-M-39282- 218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Akash @ Diljale State of Haryana CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences punishable under Sections Police Station 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: -2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Akash @ Diljale versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Naveen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences punishable under Sections Police Station Chandhut, Palwal. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “To SHO, P.S. Chandhut, Sir, it is requested that I Chiddi s/o Nathi, caste Shakka, R/o Ward no.2, Apollo School, Kailash N Camp, presently residing at Sarai Khatola, P.S. Mundkuti, Palwal. That I have one son Rahul and two daughters, all are married. That my son Rahul on dated 14.12.2021 about 10:00 am, went on his motorcycle bearing no. HR-29-AV-2816, Marka attending a marriage ceremony. When after finishing of marriage ceremony about 6:00 pm, he was returning then reached near Nangal Road Nehar then unknown driver of unknown vehicle while driving it 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39282-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: July 23, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate and for the petitioner. AAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.442 dated 15.12.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC, at The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present To SHO, P.S. Chandhut, Sir, it is requested that I Chiddi s/o Nathi, caste Shakka, R/o Ward no.2, Apollo School, Kailash Nagar, Palwal, P.S. Camp, presently residing at Sarai Khatola, P.S. Mundkuti, Palwal. That I have one son Rahul and two daughters, all are married. That my son Rahul on dated 14.12.2021 about 10:00 am, went on his motorcycle Pulsar, Black Colour at Rasolpur for attending a marriage ceremony. When after finishing of marriage ceremony about 6:00 pm, he was returning then reached near Nangal Road Nehar then unknown driver of unknown vehicle while driving it 1 2024 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , at The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present To SHO, P.S. Chandhut, Sir, it is requested that I Chiddi s/o Nathi, caste agar, Palwal, P.S. Camp, presently residing at Sarai Khatola, P.S. Mundkuti, Palwal. That I have one son Rahul and two daughters, all are married. That my son Rahul on dated 14.12.2021 about 10:00 am, went on his motorcycle Pulsar, Black Colour at Rasolpur for attending a marriage ceremony. When after finishing of marriage ceremony about 6:00 pm, he was returning then reached near Nangal Road Nehar then unknown driver of unknown vehicle while driving it MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39282- 3. is in custody since iterated that, in fact, the same was registered on the basis of suspicion only. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no material availa active role of the petitioner into the offence in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the for more than 03 years and 07 months on account of not coming forth against them by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that, in any case, the entire prosecution evidence now stands led, and thus, the petitioner, who has clean ante influence the trial. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. petition by arguing that murder of one Rahul the entire prosecution evidence stands led, the trial proceedings be expedited and the instant petition be rejected. Learned State counsel record custody certificate dated 22.07.202 record. -2024 (O&M) rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of my son on front side and due to the accident my son received severe injuries. That during treatment, he died due to these injuries. Earlier we had doubt that someone has caused beating to my son but now we have verified on my own our level that my son met with an accident. It is requested that legal action be taken against the unknown driver of unknown vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 17.12.2021. Learned counsel , in fact, the petitioner is not named in the FIR the same was registered on the basis of suspicion only. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no material availa active role of the petitioner into the offence in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the petitioner has for more than 03 years and 07 months on account of coming forth despite bailable/ non-bailable warrants having been issued against them by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that, in any case, the entire prosecution evidence now stands led, and the petitioner, who has clean antecedents, is not in a position to influence the trial. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present arguing that the petitioner is actively involved in murder of one Rahul. Learned State counsel has further submitted that since the entire prosecution evidence stands led, the trial proceedings be expedited and the instant petition be rejected. Learned State counsel record custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on 2 y dashed the motorcycle of my son on front side and due to the accident my son received severe injuries. That during treatment, he died due to these injuries. Earlier we had doubt that someone has caused beating to my son but now we have verified on my our level that my son met with an accident. It is requested that legal action be taken against the unknown driver of unknown vehicle.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has is not named in the FIR in question and the same was registered on the basis of suspicion only. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no material available on record to substantiate active role of the petitioner into the offence in question. Learned counsel for petitioner has faced protracted trial for more than 03 years and 07 months on account of prosecution witnesses bailable warrants having been issued against them by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that, in any case, the entire prosecution evidence now stands led, and cedents, is not in a position to influence the trial. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. earned State counsel has opposed the present the petitioner is actively involved in committing the . Learned State counsel has further submitted that since the entire prosecution evidence stands led, the trial proceedings be expedited and the instant petition be rejected. Learned State counsel seeks to place on 5 in Court, which is taken on 2 y dashed the motorcycle of my son on front side and due to the accident my son received severe injuries. That during treatment, he died due to these injuries. Earlier we had doubt that someone has caused beating to my son but now we have verified on my our level that my son met with an accident. It is requested that legal that the petitioner for the petitioner has in question and the same was registered on the basis of suspicion only. Learned counsel has to substantiate active role of the petitioner into the offence in question. Learned counsel for faced protracted trial prosecution witnesses bailable warrants having been issued against them by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that, in any case, the entire prosecution evidence now stands led, and cedents, is not in a position to earned State counsel has opposed the present committing the . Learned State counsel has further submitted that since the entire prosecution evidence stands led, the trial proceedings be expedited seeks to place on 5 in Court, which is taken on MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39282- 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited entire prosecution evidence now stands led. The case is, in fact, fixed for defence eviden Bar give rise to debatable issues course of trial. This Court does these rival contentions, at this tangible has been brought absconding from the 7. passed by this Court Raj alias Rajinder Singh (neutral citation no. for the for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in prosecution's case and ensuring the accused prosecution is principle of criminal -2024 (O&M) I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is not in dispute that entire prosecution evidence now stands led. The case is, in fact, fixed for evidence/ arguments, on 29.07.2025 Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice. At this juncture, it would be apposite this Court in CRM-M-62189-2024 Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:086951), relevant “As the prosecution evidence nears its fag end, the very for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ – ceases, the law itself ceases— ambit, the factual milieu of the instant rationale for pre-trial detention, securing the integrity of prosecution's case and ensuring the accused is substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the prosecution is virtually complete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the right to a fair trial 3 rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2021 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 15.03.2022. Total and it is not in dispute that the entire prosecution evidence now stands led. The case is, in fact, fixed for ce/ arguments, on 29.07.2025. The rival contentions raised at shall be ratiocinated upon during the deem it appropriate to delve deep into lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner it would be apposite to refer to the judgment 2024 titled Harjinder Singh alias versus State of Punjab, decided on 16.07.2025 , relevant part thereof reads thus:- the prosecution evidence nears its fag end, the very premise continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, a common ground for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in such ances. As the venerable legal maxim goes ‘Cessante – when the reason for the law —duly encapsulates within its ambit, the factual milieu of the instant case. The primary tention, securing the integrity of the prosecution's case and ensuring the accused’s presence at trial, substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the virtually complete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal isprudence that the right to a fair trial 3 parties and have gone through whereinafter Total the entire prosecution evidence now stands led. The case is, in fact, fixed for The rival contentions raised at shall be ratiocinated upon during the deem it appropriate to delve deep into lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner refer to the judgment Harjinder Singh alias 16.07.2025 premise continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly apprehension of the petitioner influencing or witnesses, a common ground such ‘Cessante when the reason for the law duly encapsulates within its case. The primary the s presence at trial, substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the virtually complete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal isprudence that the right to a fair trial MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39282- prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can fun Public Prosecutor, High Court learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than in any other case undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishin -2024 (O&M) is paramount, an indispensable facet opportunity to present a robust defense. Although lead by an accused is regulated by sec 233 Cr.P.C., nonetheless, it is one of the most trial is not a one-sided affair; system where both the prosecution and the afforded an equal, if not greater, opportunity to substantiate their respective cases. To effectively exercis right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty of the accused is often an essential custody faces considerable impediments in legal counsel, gathering defense witnesses, and preparing strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can severely cripple the defense, thereby striking at the very root of a fair trial. Audi alteram partem fundamental dictate of natural justice, and there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory.At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court (SC) 429, relevant part thereof reads as “11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted.” Further, as per custody certificate dated learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 03 years and 07 months in any other case/ FIR. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishin 4 is paramount, an indispensable facet of which is the accused's opportunity to present a robust defense. Although the right to lead by an accused is regulated by sec 233 Cr.P.C., it is one of the most valuable rights. A criminal sided affair; it embodies the adversarial system where both the prosecution and the defense must be afforded an equal, if not greater, opportunity to substantiate their respective cases. To effectively exercise this inalienable defense evidence, the physical liberty of the factor. A person confined to custody faces considerable impediments in consulting with legal counsel, gathering defense witnesses, and preparing their strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can defense, thereby striking at the very root of Audi alteram partem – hear the other side – is a damental dictate of natural justice, and denying bail when there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory.At this juncture, it would be herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble ikantiNarasimhulu and others versus of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR relevant part thereof reads as 1. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to man on bail has a better chance to prepare than one remanded in custody. And if promoted, mechanical detention s per custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a months & is not shown to be involved Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to 4 of which is the accused's the right to lead by an accused is regulated by sec 233 Cr.P.C., A criminal it embodies the adversarial defense must be afforded an equal, if not greater, opportunity to substantiate e this inalienable defense evidence, the physical liberty of the factor. A person confined to consulting with eir strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can defense, thereby striking at the very root of is a denying bail when there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory.At this juncture, it would be herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble ikantiNarasimhulu and others versus of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR 1. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to man on bail has a better chance to prepare than one remanded in custody. And if promoted, mechanical detention the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a & is not shown to be involved Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is g bail/surety bonds to MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39282- the satisfaction of the Ld. 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: 9. which may be imposed by concerned CJM hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 10. 11. opinion on the merits of the case. -2024 (O&M) the satisfaction of the Ld. 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 (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 the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay trial. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 5 the satisfaction of the Ld. 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:- ner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of 5 the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty before the the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station prior the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39282- 12. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2024 (O&M) Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6 Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 6 Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment