REEMA SAINI 2026.07.30 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-28809 of 2026(O&M) 2 Splendor motor cycle. They also snatched Rs.5/6 thousand from Manjit Singh, his mobile phone and fled on their motor cycle towards village Sadopur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody for the last 1 year. Co-accused namely Alok had been enlarged on regular bail by order of this Court dated 01.08.2025. Allegations against the petitioners were at par. Though investigation in the case was complete, no witness out of 20 was examined. Petitioner too was entitled to bail on parity. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Jagbir Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala, District Ambala and has opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that petitioner was the main accused from whom recovery of mobile phone, Rs.400/- and motor cycle was effected. While committing the offence, grievous injury was caused to the complainant. Petitioner’s case could not be treated at par with co-accused enlarged on bail as petitioner was involved in one other case under Sections 310(2) and 311 BNS. 5. Co-accused Alok has been allowed regular bail vide order of this Court dated 06.04.2026. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f 31.07.2025 i.e. for almost 1 year. Investigation has been completed and trial has just commenced. Out of 16 prosecution witnesses only 1 has been examined and 15 are yet to be recorded. Conclusion of trial by an early date is not in sight. 6. Speedy trial has now been recognised as a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged custody of an accused and delay in trial entitles him to bail. Law in this regard has been settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Sagar Ashok Satkar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 2870 of 2024 decided on REEMA SAINI 2026.07.30 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-28809 of 2026(O&M) 3 12.07.2024; Nilesh Vithoba Gadade Versus The State of Maharashtra and another, Crl. Appeal No.3040 of 2025 decided on 18.07.2025 and Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8523 of 2024 decided on 09.09.2024. 7. Involvement of petitioner in other criminal case cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. No useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 30.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.30 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh