CRM-M-33424-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRM-M-33424-2026 Date of decision : 26.08.2026 Date of uploading : 26.08.2026 Ankit ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. --- 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.0469 dated 30.12.2021 under Sections 25 of Arms Act and Section 302, 34 of IPC 1860 (corresponding to Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS) (Sections 25(1-B) (a), 27 and 30 of Arms Act and Section 114, 302, 34, 201, 120-B of IPC, 1860 added later on) (corresponding to Sections 54, 103(1), 3(5), 238, 61 of BNS), registered at Police Station Uklana, District Hisar. 2. The FIR in question pertains to the murder of one Ramphal alias Bachi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2022. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. JATIN 2026.08.26 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33424-2026 -2- Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution witness stands examined. Learned counsel has also argued that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Amit Kumar @ Mitta, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in CRM-M No.64481 of 2025. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit dated 16.07.2026, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, 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 26.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2022 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 07.04.2022. Total 44 prosecution witnesses have been cited, 19 have been examined and 7 have been given up till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- JATIN 2026.08.26 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33424-2026 -3- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” 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 26.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 years, 7 months and 12 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 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 JATIN 2026.08.26 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33424-2026 -4- 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. 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 26.08.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.08.26 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document