CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 265 CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 22.07.2026 Manish ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Manjeet Garhwal, Advocate for Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral) This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.498 dated 03.07.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 351(3), 3(5) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 29 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Anoop’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 02.07.2025, at about 11:30 P.M., his vehicle was hired by four boys at Bus Stand Sector-43, Chandigarh for Karnal, and that on the way on gunpoint his vehicle, mobilephone etc. were robbed by the abovenamed assailants. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.22 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) 2 3. According to prosecution, in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation four accused namely ‘Sagar’, ‘Naveen’, ‘Manish’ (the petitioner herein) and ‘Deepak’ were arrested and they were got identified from the complainant. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. 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. 6. Heard. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. 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 a day; ii. that this is second petition for bail and that after the dismissal of first bail application, the benefit of bail has been accorded to the co-accused. Thus in the changed scenario, the present petition is maintainable; iii. that there is no significant progress in trial from the date of dismissal of first bail application, as out fifteen VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.22 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) 3 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far; iv. that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; v. that investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii. 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 viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 9. 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 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.22 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) 4 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”. 10. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga- tion 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”. 11. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhat- tisgarh’, 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.22 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) 5 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 ac- cused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credi- bility 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”. 12. 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 In- dia. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and An- other”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 13. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in- volved 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 peti- tion deserves to be allowed. 14. 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.22 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38886-2026 (O&M) 6 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 22.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.22 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document