CRM-M-27465-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CRM-M-27465-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 FARUKH ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Rishi Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 1. 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.183 dated 22.06.2020 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 34, 379A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Industrial Sector 29 Panipat. 2. In nut-shell the facts and circumstances emanating from record are that the petitioner, who was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 379A IPC was accorded the benefit of bail on 16.07.2020, but during the course of trial he did not appear before the Court, and therefore, his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the state. Subsequently the petitioner appeared before the Court on 01.02.2023 and on the very next day, he was released on bail. However, after that, i.e. on VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27465-2026 2 03.07.2025, he again failed to appear before the Court, and therefore, his bail was cancelled for the second time and on this occasion after taking up proceedings under Section 84 BNSS, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 21.02.2026. On 23.02.2026 the petitioner surrendered before the Court and since then he is in custody. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice 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. 5. Heard. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. 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 five months and twenty six days; ii) that former petition for bail filed by the petitioner was not decided on merits and it was simply dismissed as withdrawn; iii) that except one case under Section 305 BNS, the petitioner does not have any pending criminal case against him; iv) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27465-2026 3 petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on fresh bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid 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. 10. However, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under Section 491 of BNSS. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 23.07.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document