IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Vivek Yadav State of Haryana [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of [Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS added later on and Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on] 2. ‘Satyanarayan’ stated by pm, his son ‘Ayush’ had left home with his friends ‘Golu’ and ‘Umesh’, and that after sometime was answered by ‘Golu injuries in CRM-M-14630-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vivek Yadav VERSUS Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. Balwinder Sangwan, Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Sections [Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS added later on and Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on], Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad. The abovementioned FIR came into being ‘Satyanarayan’, hereinafter being referred to as stated by the above-named complainant that on 06.01.2025 at about 07.00 his son ‘Ayush’ had left home with his friends ‘Golu’ and ‘Umesh’, and that after sometime, when he called his son on his mobile phone, the call was answered by ‘Golu’, who informed him that ‘Ayush’ had suffered injuries in a fight, and that he was admitted in B.K. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14630-2026(O&M) Reserved on : 20.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.12 dated 07.01.2025 fence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) [Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS added later on and Section 3(5) of BNS Mujesar, Faridabad. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was complainant that on 06.01.2025 at about 07.00 his son ‘Ayush’ had left home with his friends ‘Golu’ and ‘Umesh’, and when he called his son on his mobile phone, the call who informed him that ‘Ayush’ had suffered a fight, and that he was admitted in B.K. Hospital. According to (O&M) Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has 07.01.2025, 103(1), 3(5) [Sections 190, 191(3) of BNS added later on and Section 3(5) of BNS at the instance of only. It was complainant that on 06.01.2025 at about 07.00 his son ‘Ayush’ had left home with his friends ‘Golu’ and ‘Umesh’, and when he called his son on his mobile phone, the call who informed him that ‘Ayush’ had suffered Hospital. According to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document complainant was declared dead. The complainant further stated that he cam Umesh’s brother ‘Varun’ some altercation with a boy, and that to sort out the matter when his son ‘Ayush’, ‘Umesh’ and ‘Golu’ went to meet the opposite party out between them, i.e. ‘Ayush’ etc. on one side and ‘Ashish’, ‘Atul’, ‘Jila’, ‘Pankaj’ and other associates on other side. abovesaid 3. statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the injury responsible for the death of ‘Ayush pointed weapon, i.e. ‘Poker’ prosecution, d accused ‘Pankaj Singh’ person of decea 4. Singh was interrogation, disclosed that inflicted injuries on the person of deceased by kicks and punches. 5. 6. CRM-M-14630-2026 (O&M) 2 complainant, when he reached the hospital, he came to know that his son was declared dead. The complainant further stated that he cam Umesh’s brother ‘Varun’, who was working at ‘Victor Enterprises’ some altercation with a boy, and that to sort out the matter when his son ‘Ayush’, ‘Umesh’ and ‘Golu’ went to meet the opposite party out between them, i.e. ‘Ayush’ etc. on one side and ‘Ashish’, ‘Atul’, ‘Jila’, ‘Pankaj’ and other associates on other side. said fight, ‘Ayush’ had suffered injuries It is the case of prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the injury responsible for the death of ‘Ayush pointed weapon, i.e. ‘Poker’, used by the accused ‘Jilajit’. prosecution, during the course of investigation, ‘Pankaj Singh’ was carrying a stick and caused injuries on the person of deceased with the help of that stick only. It is further case of the prosecution that when accused Pankaj Singh was interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that the petitioner was also present at the time of incident and he inflicted injuries on the person of deceased by kicks and punches. Heard. The record has been perused carefully. 2 when he reached the hospital, he came to know that his son was declared dead. The complainant further stated that he came to know that who was working at ‘Victor Enterprises’, had some altercation with a boy, and that to sort out the matter when his son ‘Ayush’, ‘Umesh’ and ‘Golu’ went to meet the opposite party, a fight broke out between them, i.e. ‘Ayush’ etc. on one side and ‘Ashish’, ‘Atul’, ‘Jila’, ‘Pankaj’ and other associates on other side. As per complainant, in the ‘Ayush’ had suffered injuries, which proved to be fatal. ase of prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the injury responsible for the death of ‘Ayush’ was caused by a sharp used by the accused ‘Jilajit’. As per investigation, it was developed that the co was carrying a stick and caused injuries on the sed with the help of that stick only. further case of the prosecution that when accused Pankaj he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he the petitioner was also present at the time of incident and he inflicted injuries on the person of deceased by kicks and punches. The record has been perused carefully. when he reached the hospital, he came to know that his son e to know that had some altercation with a boy, and that to sort out the matter when his son a fight broke- out between them, i.e. ‘Ayush’ etc. on one side and ‘Ashish’, ‘Atul’, ‘Jila’, complainant, in the ase of prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was revealed ’ was caused by a sharp- As per the co- was carrying a stick and caused injuries on the further case of the prosecution that when accused Pankaj he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he the petitioner was also present at the time of incident and he GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consi decision: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) x) 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been CRM-M-14630-2026 (O&M) 3 A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consi : - that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and two months; ii) that as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; iii) that the injury, which proved to be fatal, to the petitioner; iv) that at the time of incident, the petitioner was not carrying any weapon; v) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the similarly placed co-accused; vi) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the of petitioner; vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; ix) 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 x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial In the present case, the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal 3 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 that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more one year and two months; that as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has the injury, which proved to be fatal, has not been attributed that at the time of incident, the petitioner was not carrying any has already been accorded to the left to be recovered from the possession that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, ner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. the principles of law laid down by in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,are also relevant, a fundamental postulate of criminal A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are deration for a that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more that as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has has not been attributed that at the time of incident, the petitioner was not carrying any has already been accorded to the possession that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, ner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the principles of law laid down by the Dataram versus State of relevant, a fundamental postulate of criminal GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document jurisprudence is the presumption of 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 (whic 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 ou 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 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 9. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed 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 CRM-M-14630-2026 (O&M) 4 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 ou 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”. The principles laid down by the in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed 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 4 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 hever 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 ou 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 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 d down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of 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 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 hever 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 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 Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of are also relevant in this case. 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 case of grave injustice 10. Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “ 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 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 Cou many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 11. fundamental principle of law that right to speedy tria fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as by Hon’ble Another”, CRM-M-14630-2026 (O&M) 5 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”. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “if an accused is 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 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”. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy tria fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 5 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. , an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 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 rtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o 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 Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and 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. , an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 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 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 rtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and l is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner present petition deserves to be allowed. 13. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on bail on furnishing satisfaction of shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) (iii) 24.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-14630-2026 (O&M) 6 If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ac 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 , till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 6 If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered personal bond and surety bond(s) to the . However the abovementioned concession he 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 to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a , and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the ordered to the . However the abovementioned concession he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any quainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish , till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document