CRM-M-28008-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-28008-2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 IRSHAD ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.64 dated 13.02.2026 registered under Sections 54, 221, 121(1), 132, 109(1), 324(4), 3(5) of BNS and Section 181(3) of M.V. Act, at Police Station Bilaspur, Gurugram. 2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the present case is one of a road side accident. Be that as it may, taking the allegations to be believable, the injured has received only simply injuries, which are effectively complaints of pain and swelling. As the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2026 but none of the 21 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon, and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has filed a reply dated 22.07.2026 by way of an affidavit of Manoj, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pataudi, Gurugram, which is taken on record. While referring to KUSUM 2026.07.27 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-28008-2026 -2- the said reply, she contends that the petitioner was travelling in a dumper (No. HR-38AG-9961) of which he is the owner. The same was being driven by Munphed in a rash and negligent manner. When the police party tried to stop them, they attempted to run the police party over. Therefore, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession of bail. She, however concedes that the injuries received by the injured are simple in nature, that the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2026 and that none of the 21 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2026 but none of the 21 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Irshad S/o Sourabh Khan is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.27 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh