CRM-M-45195-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 252 CRM-M-45195-2026 Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Date of uploading : 03.09.2026 Dharminder Karir@ Dharamender ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lovejeet Poonia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sonpreet S. Brar, Advocate for the respondent. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.429 dated 27.06.2024 under Section 346 of the IPC (Sections 302, 201, 212, 120-B, 34 and 404 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa. 2. The FIR in question pertains to the murder of one Rajender @ Raju. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024. Learned Senior counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the case in hand does not involve any direct evidence against the petitioner. Even the JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45195-2026 -2- deceased is alleged to have been taken away by one Bhim Sain, who has been afforded the concession of regular bail vide order dated 02.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-47286-2026 by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the said order passed in respect of the said accused remained unassailed before the Apex Court till date. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that, apart from the said accused, namely, Bhim Sain, other accused, namely, Jagtar Singh, Harjinder Singh @ Harwinder Singh @ Binder Singh and Virender alias Pawan, have also been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-11632-2025 and CRM-M-55014-2024 and order dated 12.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-22262-2025, respectively. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 31.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are direct and serious in nature. Learned counsel has further urged that there is clear evidence in the form of telephonic records, which clearly shows the culpability of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel has further urged that there is further evidence available in the form of CCTV footage against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is an accentuated threat perception to the complainant side in case the petitioner is released on JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45195-2026 -3- bail. 5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 28.06.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 24.09.2024. Total 55 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years and 02 months, and the trial not being likely to culminate in the near future, as also the factum of other co-accused, namely, Bhim Sain, Jagtar Singh, Harjinder Singh @ Harwinder Singh @ Binder and Virender alias Pawan, having been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court; this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 31.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years and 02 months & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45195-2026 -4- However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45195-2026 -5- 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document