CRM-M-39252-2026 1 230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39252-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 HIMANSHU PANDEY @ RAJ PANDEY ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate and Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is being preferred 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 case FIR No. 0894 dated 23.12.2022, registered under Sections 379-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 304 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), with Section 411 IPC (corresponding to Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) added subsequently, at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Indravesh, who alleged that on 23.12.2022, at about 4:30 AM, he and his friend Govind were proceeding near Nathupur on GT Road when 2-3 unknown persons intercepted them and snatched ₹1,000/- and a Realme mobile phone from him before fleeing from the spot. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and Section 411 IPC (corresponding to Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39252-2026 2 Sanhita, 2023) was added. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the learned Trial Court, where the trial is presently pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and came to be nominated only during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, as the alleged stolen mobile phone was recovered from the co- accused, Mithun. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2022 and was granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Trial Court. It is argued that after his release on bail, the petitioner regularly appeared before the learned Trial Court on several dates and his absence on certain occasions was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred on account of a bona fide communication gap regarding the next date of hearing between the petitioner and his counsel/clerk, which resulted in cancellation of his bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter voluntarily surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 18.03.2024 and, considering his surrender, he was again granted the concession of regular bail on 22.03.2024. 3.2 Learned counsel submits that after his second release on bail, the petitioner again appeared before the learned Trial Court on several dates. However, owing to another bona fide communication gap regarding the next date of hearing, he could not appear subsequently, leading to issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. (now Sections 84 and 85 BNSS), KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39252-2026 3 whereafter he was taken into custody. It is contended that the petitioner never intended to evade the process of law and deeply regrets his absence. He undertakes to remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, if enlarged on bail. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 01.04.2026. The investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail, subject to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that although the investigation stands concluded and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.1 It is contended that the petitioner was earlier granted regular bail on two occasions; however, he failed to appear before the learned Trial Court, resulting in cancellation of his bail, forfeiture of his bail bonds, issuance of non-bailable warrants and, subsequently, proclamation proceedings. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's repeated non-appearance demonstrates his disregard for the process of law and raises a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail again, he may not remain available to face the trial. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39252-2026 4 6. Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The petitioner is not named in the FIR, no recovery has been effected from him, the investigation stands concluded, and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 01.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Though the petitioner had earlier remained absent before the learned Trial Court, resulting in cancellation of his bail and issuance of coercive process, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to extend one final opportunity to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that in the event of his absence before the learned Trial Court on any date without sufficient cause, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 7. 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 purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39252-2026 5 8. 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 Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39252-2026 6 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 23.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh