CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 14.07.2026 Hitesh @Kaku ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.69 dated 13.03.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(3), 351(2), 351(3) [Sections 33, 61(2) and 238-C added later on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Munak, District Karnal. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Gurpinder Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his brother ‘Sachin’ was adopted by his uncle, namely ‘Jagbir’, and that he was unmarried. According to complainant, on 12.03.2024 a quarrel had taken place between them and ‘Sombeer’, ‘Ankit’ (son of Darshan), ‘Sahil’, ‘Amit’, ‘Mohit’, Sandeep and ‘Ankit’ son of Shastri. As per complainant, on 12.03.2025 at about 08.00 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 2 pm, all the above-named persons came to their house in a black Scorpio vehicle and resorted to indiscriminate firing with intention to kill his father, mother and brother. It was also stated by the complainant that one of the assailants, who was armed with a ‘sword’, had inflicted injury on the hand of his father and that in the abovementioned incident, mother of the complainant, namely ‘Sumitra’, suffered a bullet injury on her chest and later on she passed away. According to complainant, his father and brother, too, had suffered multiple gunshot injuries. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and three months. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. As per learned counsel for the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 3 complainant, the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused, namely ‘Kela Devi’ and ‘Attar Singh’, by this Court. 7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that a very heinous crime has been committed in the present case, wherein one human being has been killed and several were serious injured, in indiscriminate firing of gunshots. According to learned State Counsel, in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and three months; ii. that name of the petitioner does not figures in the FIR; iii. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused, namely ‘Kela Devi’ and ‘Attar Singh’, by this Court; iv. that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was present on the spot at the time of occurrence. As per prosecution the role of the petitioner is that he provided logistic support to the assailants; 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- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 4 mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact has not taken 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. Thus, 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 the petitioner in judicial lockup 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; and x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate 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(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 5 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 Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (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 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”. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 6 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 the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29715-2026 (O&M) 7 satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession 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 to disclose 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 the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.15 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document