CRM-M No.22890 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 241 ***** CRM-M No.22890 of 2026 Date of decision : 8.7.2026 Date of uploading : 8.7.2026 Sunil Kumar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.4 dated 9.2.2026 under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station ACB, District Hisar. 2. The material collected during the course of investigation transpires that a quarrel took place on 20.12.2025 between complainant’s nephews Naveen & Sachin, Ashish and Dhruv (sister's sons) with Kamal S/o Rajpal and others, residents of Azad Nagar, Geeta Colony, Hisar, regarding some matter at Sector-13, Hisar. In that regard, FIR No. 468 dated 24.12.2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, against complainant’s nephews Dhruv, Ashish, Sachin, Ankush, etc. In the said case, Dhruv was arrested on 09.01.2026 by ASI Jai Prakash of ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22890 of 2026 -2- Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, and was sent to Central Jail, Hisar. ASI Jai Prakash, through Naib Court Sunil, is demanding a bribe amount of 1,00,000 in return for getting Dhruv released early from jail, for filing the challan quickly, for helping in obtaining bail, and for helping in arranging testimony further in the case. In this regard, complainant’s cousin Anil has also recorded the conversation in a device, which will present later. The complainant does not want to pay this bribe amount to these corrupt officials, and want strict legal action against both of them. Hence, the FIR in question was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 9.2.2026. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime accused in the FIR in question is ASI-Jai Prakash, who is already in custody. Learned counsel has further submitted that, upon culmination of investigation, challan already stands presented. Learned counsel has further submitted that this Court on 30.4.2026 had made an order that the case in hand be adjourned to 8.7.2026 and the statement of the complainant be recorded by the next date of hearing, but the complainant is repeatedly not coming forward to have his testimony recorded on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to orders dated 21.5.2026, 26.5.2026, 1.7.2026 and 4.7.2026 to argue that despite warrants having been issued against the FIR-complainant/witness, he has intentionally chosen to keep away from the Court proceedings. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a man aged 42 years with clean antecedents. Learned counsel ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22890 of 2026 -3- has further urged that the petitioner is presently under suspension. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply dated 1.7.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that there is clinching evidence alongwith the challan/charge-sheet against the petitioner, which reflects culpability of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further urged that the petitioner was working as Head Constable and has misused his official position and indulged in corruption. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 7.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 9.2.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 6.4.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 35 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, it is conceded case that none have been examined till date. A perusal of the zimni orders i.e. ibid passed by the trial Court, indubitably reflect that the FIR-complainant is not intentionally coming forward for recording his testimony despite issuance of warrants against him. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is presently under suspension. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22890 of 2026 -4- 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 or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 7.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 4 months and 27 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more FIR. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22890 of 2026 -5- 7. 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 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-use the liberty granted. (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 before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. 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 petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 8.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document