262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37652-2025 Date of decision: 23.07.2025 Vishal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.792 dated 29.12.2024 under Section 331 of BNS (Sections 309(6)/317(5)/238/127(2) of BNS added during investigation) registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, District Faridabad, Haryana (Annexure P-1). Compactly, the facts of the case are that on 28.12.2024 at around 10:45 P.M. the complainant along with his wife were sleeping at home and suddenly, he heard a loud noise from side room and saw that two young boys aged about 22-25 years were present there and both of them attacked him and his wife with sharp edged weapons and looted the valuable articles form his house and thus, the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR (supra). He further submits that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the present case later on and at the most, the petitioner can be Neha 2025.07.23 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37652-2025 -2- held liable for the offence under Section 317(5) of BNS as the stolen articles were allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 07 months. Even the main accused, namely, Mohit, who is alleged to have stolen the articles, has been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 21.07.2025. Further, the material witnesses including the complainant have already been examined and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 16 witnesses are yet to be examined. Further, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is sufficient material available on record to prove the complicity of the petitioner and he is not entitled to any relief. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since Neha 2025.07.23 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37652-2025 -3- 31.12.2024. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as only 03 out of 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far including the complainant. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Vishal, is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.07.23 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document