1 CRM-M-47073-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-47073-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.08.2026 RAJESH PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.343 dated 11.06.2026 under Sections 61, 351(3), 232(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Sadar, District Hisar. Section 296 BNS has been added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petition for regular bail. 2. As per allegations, petitioner called complainant Sundar Singh on 09.07.2026, with regard to a criminal case lodged by him against Devendra alias Deva and coerced him to settle the matter. When complainant refused, petitioner abused him and extended threat to kill. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner were triable by the Court of Magistrate. Petitioner was behind bars w.e.f. 11.07.2026. There was inordinate delay of 30 hours in registration of FIR. Investigation and trial would take long, therefore, petitioner be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.08.31 15:05 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-47073-2026 (O&M) 5. Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and files custody certificate dated 26.08.2026, which is taken on record. Mr. Amit Chaudhary appears on behalf of the complainant. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for regular bail arguing that petitioner was involved in two other cases, though, he was acquitted in 12 matters. Conversation of the petitioner with complainant was recorded and the audio recording was in possession of the Investigating Agency. Petitioner is behind bars w.e.f. 09.07.2026. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, involvement of petitioner in two other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail and the prayer for bail has to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each individual case. Case is triable by Court of Magistrate. Conclusion of trial is likely to take long. In view of the well-recognized principle of law that “bail is the rule and jail an exception”, but without commenting on merits, the petition for regular bail is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.08.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.08.31 15:05 I agree to specified portions of this document