CRM-M-48013-2026 -1- 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48013-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 JAKIR ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Soeb Khan, Advocate and Mr. Dilshad Ilyas, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 450, dated 11.10.2025 registered at Police Station City Sohna, District Gurugram, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’). 2. Custody certificate dated 27.08.2026 filed today in Court is taken on record. 3. On the statement of one Rafikan, the FIR in question was registered. It was alleged that her marriage had been solemnized with Jakir (petitioner) and four children were born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that right since the marriage, the petitioner and his entire family had been harassing her. The petitioner used to beat and drive her out of the matrimonial NEERAJ 2026.09.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48013-2026 -2- home. It was also alleged that he was involved with another lady. It was further alleged that on 02.10.2025, the petitioner-Jakir allegedly started beating her up and struck her head with a heavy cutting tool, causing injuries to her head and hands. It was also alleged that she was locked in the room and Jakir threatened to kill her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a domestic quarrel, which led to the registration of the FIR. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 15 days. He submits that the complainant and other eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Reference has been made to the statements Annexures P-6 to P-8. He further submits that trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that very serious injuries were inflicted by the petitioner upon his own wife. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The complainant, who happens to be the wife of the petitioner, has not supported the case of the prosecution nor have any of the eyewitnesses supported the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 15 days. Trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court NEERAJ 2026.09.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48013-2026 -3- does not find any reason to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 02.09.2026 JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No NEERAJ 2026.09.03 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document