CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (232) CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.07.2026 KULDEEP ALIAS KULDEEP SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Ravi Swami, Advocate along with Mr. Punyaveet, Advocate and Mr. Pranshul Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition, being the first under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been preferred seeking the concession of regular bail during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 269 dated 13.04.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 302, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 61(2), 103(1), 303(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1). 2. Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on the statement of the complainant, Angrej Singh, who alleged that his elder sister, Karamjeet Kaur, had been married to co-accused Gurjeet Singh, son GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) -:2:- of Vakil Singh, about sixteen years earlier, and that they had a son, Navdeep Singh, aged about fourteen years. It was alleged that Gurjeet Singh was addicted to alcohol and habitually subjected Karamjeet Kaur to physical assault and harassment. For about one year preceding the occurrence, Gurjeet Singh had allegedly been residing with his elder brother Harjinder Singh and sister-in-law Manpreet alias Monika at Khairpur, Sirsa, whereas Karamjeet Kaur and her son were residing separately at Preet Nagar, Sirsa. According to the complainant, Gurjeet Singh frequently visited their residence and threatened Karamjeet Kaur and her son with dire consequences unless they vacated the house, while Harjinder Singh and Manpreet alias Monika allegedly supported and encouraged his conduct. 2.1. On 13.04.2024, at about 5:00 a.m., Karamjeet Kaur allegedly informed the complainant over the telephone that while she, along with her friend Priyanka, wife of Narender Singh, was proceeding towards Chilla Sahib Gurudwara, Sirsa, on a scooty via Begu Road, Gurjeet Singh intentionally rammed Truck No. HR-57-A-2325 into them with the intention of causing their death. As a result of the impact, Priyanka died at the spot, while Karamjeet Kaur sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, communication with Karamjeet Kaur ceased. She was initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Sirsa, and subsequently referred to Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, where she succumbed to her injuries during treatment. The complainant further alleged that Gurjeet Singh committed the murders of Karamjeet Kaur and Priyanka pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched with his brother Harjinder Singh and GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) -:3:- Manpreet alias Monika, with whom Gurjeet Singh was allegedly maintaining an illicit relationship. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Notice of motion. 4. At the very outset, Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State. The custody certificate tendered by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail and has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book, the custody certificate and the material available on record with their able assistance. 6. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the applicant- petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 17.04.2024, i.e., for approximately two years, two months and twenty-four days. Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and no specific role was attributed to him at the inception of the prosecution case. It is also not disputed that a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-18372-2025. Furthermore, as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and has clean antecedents. The trial is still at its nascent stage and has not progressed substantially. It is well settled that the right to a speedy trial constitutes an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) -:4:- an undertrial cannot be subjected to prolonged incarceration for an indefinite period when the conclusion of trial is not likely in the near future. Having regard to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the absence of any previous criminal antecedents, the principle of parity, and the fact that the trial is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the petitioner's incarceration pending trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 6.1. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The applicant- petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and subject further to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) -:5:- the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36413-2026 (O&M) -:6:- permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 7. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all pending miscellaneous/interlocutory applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of in terms of the present judgment. Consequently, no separate or further orders are required to be passed thereon. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document