CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (237) CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:22.07.2026 YADVINDER SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 179 dated 20.07.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Ambala, under Sections 103(1), 191(3), 190(1), 110, 115(2), 127(2), 351(2), 61 and 238A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302, 148, 149, 308, 323, 342, 506, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, Rohtash, son of late GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 2 Bachana Ram, who alleged that on 19.07.2024, at about 8:20 A.M., while he was following his son, Ankit, on a separate motorcycle, the latter was intercepted near the Firni of village Chhota Baroula by the present petitioner and other co-accused, who had allegedly arrived in a car armed with iron rods, sticks and other deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, indiscriminately assaulted Ankit with the intention of causing his death, inflicting multiple injuries on various parts of his body. Thereafter, they allegedly tied a rope around his neck, dragged him in an unconscious condition towards a nearby Kurdi, and fled from the spot after extending threats to the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and the material collected during investigation, offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 110, 115(2), 127(2), 190(1), 191(3), 238A, 351(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were found to be prima facie made out against accused. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 06.11.2024. It is further contended that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity, as a similarly situated co-accused, namely Vikas @ Billa, has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is proceeding at a slow pace and is not likely to conclude in the near future. Consequently, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 3 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is also taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 5.1. Learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts concerning his criminal antecedents by failing to disclose two pending criminal cases as well as a complaint case instituted against him. According to the learned State counsel, such suppression disentitles the petitioner from claiming the equitable relief of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 7. A careful perusal of the material placed on record reveals that, in so far as the complaint case relied upon by the complainant is concerned, the petitioner had not even been served at the time the order produced before this Court came to be passed. Consequently, the mere omission to disclose the said proceedings cannot, by itself, be construed as deliberate suppression of material facts so as to non-suit the petitioner. It is well settled that suppression of antecedents must be intentional and of such a nature as to have a material bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion while considering a prayer for bail. Equally well settled is the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 4 proposition that the mere pendency of other criminal cases, in the absence of any conviction, cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to deny the concession of bail. 7.1. Significantly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR, nor did his name surface during the initial phase of investigation. Even in the first final report submitted by the investigating agency, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused. It was only subsequently, on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded during further investigation, that the petitioner came to be implicated. The principal allegation against him is that he was staying in the same hotel on the date of occurrence where co- accused Vikas @ Billa, son of Amarjit Singh, was allegedly staying, and on that basis alone an inference of criminal conspiracy has been sought to be drawn against him. 7.2. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 06.11.2024, i.e. for approximately one year, eight months and fourteen days. Furthermore, a similarly situated co-accused, namely Vikas @ Billa, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-2101-2026. The principle of parity, therefore, also weighs in favour of the petitioner. 7.3. Besides, the trial is still at a nascent stage and is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be be served by prolonging the petitioner's incarceration pending trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 5 trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the concession of regular bail. 7.4. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The applicant- petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his 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:- 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, 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 GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 6 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 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. 8. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38919-2026 (O&M) 7 or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document