CRM-M No.38007 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 ***** CRM-M No.38007 of 2026 Date of decision : 27.8.2026 Date of uploading : 27.8.2026 Naveen alias Sonad ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vikas Saroha, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present 2nd 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.212 dated 26.8.2025 under Sections 190, 191(3), 115, 351(3), 333 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 117(2), 117(3), 61(2), 238 of BNS and Section 39, 192(1) of M.V. Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘Statement of Rajeev S/o Jagar Singh R/o Village Mukandpur age 37 years ph. 8607139999. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and works in private company at Gurugram. Today evening I was at my home at village mukundpur, I had verbal spat with my wife, on which she called her brother to our village with intention to take revenge from me. After some time Sunil S/o Bire R/o Chulana, Jitender, Nikhilesh, Aman, Sagar, ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.38007 of 2026 -2- Chintu Dhigal, Sonu, Sonad R/o Village Dhigal came on their respective vehicles with "Binda's" and Iron Road entered into our house and gave beatings to us and taken my wife with them and threatened to kill me. My family members suffer many injuries, me, sister Sonia, and my mother Bala and my Mousi Sakuntana received injuries. S/d Rajeev.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 9.3.2026. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily on account of his acquaintance with co-accused Sunil. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner (herein) has no axe to grind against the complainant-side and it was the co-accused Sunil, who was related to the injured namely Rajiv. Learned counsel has further urged that the challan (upon culmination of investigation) already stands filed, and thus, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. 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 27.8.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 9.3.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was presented on 7.5.2026. Total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.38007 of 2026 -3- hand: especially the factum of the petitioner being in custody since 9.3.2026 qua the FIR in question, challan (upon culmination of investigation) having been filed and none of the witnesses, out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, having been examined; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 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 27.8.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 5 months and 19 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 more FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.38007 of 2026 -4- 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.5.2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the extended incarceration and glacial pace of trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another. 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. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.38007 of 2026 -5- (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 27.8.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document