CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 156 ***** CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 Date of decision : 15.7.2026 Date of uploading : 15.7.2026 Vijay Kumar @ Sidhu ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second 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.238 dated 27.4.2025 under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on), registered at Police Station Industrial, Sector 29, Panipat. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘Sir, it is respectfully submitted that 1, Himanshu son of Bhupnarayan, resident of village Raipalpur, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, presently residing at M.S. Spinning Mill Factory, Pasina Road, Panipat. I and my brother Kanhaiya work in M.S. Spinning Mill Factory. On dated 26/04/2025 at about 7.55 PM my brother was working on the machine doing thread work and I was working on another machine. With ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 -2- my brother Kanhaiya, a person from my village namely Sidhu son of Mukesh was working, who was cleaning cotton stuck on his body with a Air pressure pipe. Sidhu, with the intention to kill my brother, touched the pressure pipe from behind on his private passage (rectum), due to which air filled into my brother's stomach, and shift in-charge Avdhesh was also working there at that time. The factory owner Anil was also present there, but Avdhesh and factory owner Anil neither saved my brother from Sidhu nor sent my brother to the hospital. I took my brother for treatment to Park Hospital where during treatment at night my brother died. Sidhu touched the pressure pipe on my brother's private passage and filled air, due to which my brother died. The persons responsible for my brother's death are Sidhu, Avdhesh and factory owner Anil, against whom action be taken. Sd-/Himanshu Date 27-04-2025.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 30.5.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of murder charge. Learned counsel has further argued that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, there is no intention, appearing from the prosecution material, on record against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a young man aged 19 years and has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and trial is procrastinating. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 14.7.2026 in ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 -3- 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 30.5.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 16.8.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that none have been examined till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 -4- 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 14.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 01 month and 15 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. Yearning for freedom, it has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that first bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.2.2026, wherein following order was passed: ‘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.238 dated 27.4.2025 under Sections 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on), registered at Police Station Industrial, Sector 29, Panipat. 2. Faced with the situation that the FIR-complainant (Himanshu) is yet to be examined as a prosecution witness, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition in hand at this stage. 3. Ordered accordingly. 4. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously record the statement of above witness namely Himanshu. The trial Court is at liberty to prepone the date of hearing fixed in the trial, after notice to all concerned, for this purpose.’ Learned counsel for the petitioner; relying upon the zimni orders dated 6.3.2026, 16.3.2026, 6.4.2026, 21.4.2026, 25.5.2026; has argued that the trial is procrastinating and the said FIR-complainant PW- Himanshu intentionally is not coming forward to have his testimony ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 -5- recorded. 6.3 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially extended incarceration of the petitioner, pace of trial, and it being reflectable from the zimni orders passed by the trial Court that the delay in trial is not completely attributable to the petitioner; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.34998 of 2026 -6- 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 15.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document