CRM-M-29343-2026 (O&M) 1 230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29343-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 JAIPAL ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.75 dated 24.12.2022 under section 302/394/201 of Indian Penal Code [103(1)/309(6)/238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023] registered at Police Station GRP Rohtak, District GRP Ambala Cantt. 2. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Girdhari Lal alleging that on 23.12.2022 at around 8:00 PM, his sons namely Sukhjinder Singh and Satender Singh had gone with a Hydra-crane after receiving a phone call from unknown person regarding towing of a vehicle. On the next day, the railway police called him and subsequently the dead bodies of both his sons were found on railway tracks. The petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a secret information and on his disclosure statement an iron rod was recovered from the place of occurrence. JANKI BHATT 2026.07.07 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-29343-2026 (O&M) 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner has not been named in the FIR and it is a case of blind murder. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 06 months and 05 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 06 months and 05 days and out of total cited 29 prosecution witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined so far. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a case of circumstantial evidence; the petitioner has not been named in the FIR; the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 06 months and 05 days and is not involved in any other case; out of total cited 29 prosecution witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined so far; the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’. JANKI BHATT 2026.07.07 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-29343-2026 (O&M) 3 8. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025), decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 06.07.2026 JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JANKI BHATT 2026.07.07 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh