IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CRM-M-29198-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.08.2026 Date of uploading: 27.08.2026 Irfan @ Iffa ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner to secure regular bail in case bearing FIR No.134 dated 30.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (2), 61 of BNS-2023 (384, 120B of IPC 1860), and Sections 7 & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.27 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-29198-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 2 urged that the petitioner is not a public servant & hence, the petitioner cannot be charged for the offence alleged. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that, in any case, challan already stands filed, upon culmination of investigation. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 3. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by iterating that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. She has further argued that the petitioner may flee from the process of law, in case he is released on bail and, thus, he 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. 4. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2026 and is stated to be in continuous custody since then. Upon culmination of investigation, challan was presented on 06.05.2026. It is the conceded case before this Court that out of total 20 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum that the challan has been filed upon culmination of investigation, out of the total 20 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date, the conclusion of trial is likely to take long and no public servant has been found culpable as of now; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.27 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-29198-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 3 The rival contentions raised at the Bar, give rise to debatable issues, shall be ratiocinated 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. Further, as per custody certificate dated 26.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated to have suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months and 15 days and is stated to be involved in one other case/FIR. 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.27 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-29198-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 4 satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/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 cellphone 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 the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the petitioner's bail. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 27.08.2026 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.27 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh.