CRM-M-19156-2026 1 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19156-2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 ANOOP @ ANOOP SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 188 dated 16.08.2025, registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and subsequently Sections 308(2), 308(6) and 62 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 306, 34 and subsequently added Sections 384, 388 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana, during the pendency of trial. 2. As per the prosecution case, FIR No. 433 dated 16.08.2025 was registered at Police Station Sector-58, Faridabad, on the complaint of co- accused Laxmi, wherein she alleged that she was residing as a tenant at the premises of petitioner Anup Singh, situated at Rajiv Colony, Faridabad. She stated that she was acquainted with Babulal @ Mukesh (deceased) for the last one/two months and they used to communicate with each other occasionally. It was alleged that on 15.08.2025, Babulal @ Mukesh contacted her telephonically and, despite her refusal, came to her room. She further alleged KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.18 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19156-2026 2 that, finding her alone, Babulal @ Mukesh forcibly established physical relations with her and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It was further alleged that upon her raising an alarm, Babulal @ Mukesh fled from the spot, leaving behind his mobile phone and purse, which were subsequently handed over to the police. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 433 dated 16.08.2025 was registered at Police Station Sector-58, Faridabad, under Sections 333, 351 and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thereafter, the present FIR No. 188 dated 16.08.2025 was registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal on the complaint of Surender, brother of deceased Mukesh, alleging that due to the registration of the aforesaid FIR and the pressure exerted upon the deceased and his family members, Mukesh was mentally harassed, as a result whereof he committed suicide. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and other accused persons were involved in extending pressure and harassment to the deceased, thereby contributing to the circumstances which led to his death. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioner are misconceived and there is no material available on record to establish his involvement in the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is only the landlord of the premises where co-accused Laxmi was residing as a tenant and the deceased Mukesh was allegedly involved in the FIR registered at Police Station Sector- 58, Faridabad. It is argued that the petitioner has no role in the alleged incident and the deceased allegedly committed suicide due to the pressure arising out of the said FIR. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.18 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19156-2026 3 3.1 It is further submitted that there is no suicide note or other material collected during investigation connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that the investigation has been completed, the challan has been presented, charges have already been framed and the petitioner is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time as 25 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. It is argued that continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and to appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 08 months and 11 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the present FIR has been registered pursuant to the death of Mukesh, who allegedly committed suicide after being subjected to harassment and pressure. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was the landlord of co-accused Laxmi and is alleged to be involved in the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. It is argued that the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.18 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19156-2026 4 allegations and evidence collected during investigation require consideration during trial. 7. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is stated to be only the landlord of the premises where co-accused Laxmi was residing as a tenant and no specific overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR, coupled with the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. about 08 months and 11 days, and the fact that investigation in the present case stands completed, challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, charges have already been framed and none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, it is evident that the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. The petitioner is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial. 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.18 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19156-2026 5 purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner 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. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either 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. 5. The petitioner 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, Permanent Account KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.18 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19156-2026 6 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 bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner 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 from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner 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 his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his 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 regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 17.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.18 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh