CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Kshitij Yadav @ Rajat ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.273 dated 15.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) & 238-C of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1), (B)(b)-54-59 of Arms Act, Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Satyajit Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that his younger brother ‘Surajveer Singh’ was unmarried and he had developed bad habits of consuming drugs. According to complainant, he and other family members on several occasions asked ‘Surajveer Singh’ not to indulge in such kind of activity, but he did not MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 2 mend his ways. The complainant further alleged that on 14.08.2025 his brother ‘Surajveer’ left home at 6.30 P.M, and that later on his cousin told him that ‘Surajveer’ was lying, in injured condition, in the street. As per complainant he immediately rushed to the spot and found that his brother ‘Surajveer Singh’ lying in the street. As per complainant, injuries were caused on his stomach with sharp edged weapon and he was lying unconscious. As per complainant, he immediately dialed phone No.112 and shifted his brother to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. where he was declared to be dead. The complainant further alleged that some unknown persons had killed his brother. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, in view of previous enmity, between ‘Sarabjit’ and the deceased, ‘Sarabjit’ was interrogated, who suffered confessional statement, wherein he confessed his involvement in the commission of crime and nominated the present petitioner as his accomplice. 4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent who has been falsely implicated in the present case, merely, on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. It has also been conteded by MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 3 learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than nine months and fourteen days, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner. 7. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State counsel that in the present case there is technical evidence to show the presence of petitioner along with main accused, namely ‘Sarabjit Singh’. As per learned State counsel the CCTV footage showing the presence of deceased, main accused ‘Sarabjit’ and petitioner, together, are available on record, and that the above mentioned evidence is further supported by the tower location of the mobile phone of the petitioner, which is in the same area where incident had taken place. The learned State counsel has also contended that there is direct nexus between the commission of crime and the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than nine months and fourteen days; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 4 iii) that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness account in the present case; iv) that the motive behind the commission of offence has not been proved, particularly qua the petitioner; v) that the only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since pursuant to above- mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact did not take place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; viii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up 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; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 10. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 5 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 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 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”. 11. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 nearer to rarity, bail applications MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 6 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”. 12. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “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 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”. 13. To 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 an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 14. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.19299 of 2026 (O&M) 7 and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:- i) that the 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 from disclosing 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 shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court. 16. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document