CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107+210 CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.07.2026 Ashok ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Partap Singh, Mr. Manav Sharma and Mr. Harshit Sangwan, Advocates for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) CRM-29624-2026 This is an application seeking for permission to place certain documents on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. CRM-M-8324-2026 2. The learned State Counsel has filed status report as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 3. This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 2 pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.238 dated 08.09.2023, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 341 read with Section 34 [Sections 120B, 201, 302 added and Sections 149 and 148 deleted later on] of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sanoli, District Panipat. 4. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Ram Mehar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that two daughters of his uncle, namely ‘Radhe Sham’, were married to two, namely ‘Tejinder’ and ‘Joginder’, both sons of ‘Ramesh’. As per complainant, a marital discord was going on between the two families, and that ‘Ramesh’ being relative of ‘Ram Niwas’, was nursing a grudge against the uncle of the complainant. According to complainant, in the backdrop of abovementioned development, on 31.08.2023, ‘Ram Niwas’ and ‘Joginder’ waylaid his uncle, when he was going to home and threatened to teach him a lesson. 5. The complainant further stated that on 06.09.2023 at about 10:00 am, when his uncle was going to his home, ‘Ram Niwas’ exhorted to teach him a lesson and he was joined by ‘Ashok’ (the petitioner herein), ‘Jai Bhagwan’, ‘Sunita’, ‘Pooja’ and 3-4 unknown persons. According to complainant, all of them were armed with various weapons, whereas the petitioner was carrying an axe. The complainant further stated that they all assaulted ‘Radhe Sham’ and inflicted injuries on his head with the help of axe. As per complainant, his uncle ‘Radhe Sham’ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 3 suffered injuries in the abovementioned incident, and that the injuries suffered by him proved to be fatal. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR in this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contented on behalf of petitioner that the contents of FIR itself shows that the incident had taken place on 06.09.2023 at about 10:00 am, but the FIR of this case was lodged on 08.09.2023, i.e. after a delay of two days. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, on the day when the FIR was lodged, the injured ‘Radhe Sham’ was alive, and that after treatment, he was discharged from the hospital on 11.09.2023 and later on died on 28.09.2023, i.e. after 22 days of the incident. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, during the abovesaid period, when ‘Radhe Sham’ was alive, and in a position to give statement, his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. 9. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and nine months, and that the trial is taking place at a snail’s pace, as out of twenty five prosecution witnesses, complete statements of two witnesses and partial statement of third witness only, have been recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that for the last several dates, the trial Court is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 4 trying to procure the presence of complainant in the Court, for recording of his further examination, but the complainant is avoiding appearance in the Court on one pretext or the other, and that on last occasion his warrant of arrest was issued by the learned trial Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to other co-accused. 10. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the role attributed to the petitioner is prime role in the commission of offence and the injuries inflicted by the petitioner were responsible for the death of ‘Radhe Sham’. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that due to medical issues, the complainant could not appear before the learned trial Court, on last date, and that an application for exemption was moved, but it was not entertained by the learned trial Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 11. The learned State Counsel has contended that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and in view of gravity of offence, the benefit of bail should be denied to the petitioner, irrespective of the fact that the co-accused have been accorded the same benefit. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 5 12. The record has been perused carefully. 13. 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 two years, nine months and twenty five days; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that there is delay of two days in reporting the matter to the police; iv) that the death of ‘Radhe Sham’ had taken place after 22 days of the incident, but despite that any statement of ‘Radhe Sham’ was not recorded by the Investigating Officer; v) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused; vi) that the trial is taking place at a slow pace, and the complainant himself is responsible for such delay, as he is not appearing before the learned trial Court for his further examination; vii) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 6 14. 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 also 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 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”. 15. 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 7 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”. 16. 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”. 17. 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8324-2026 (O&M) 8 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 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 23.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document