Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (203-1) CRA-S-902-2026 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 JABRU KHAN ALIAS AFTAB ......Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Soeb Khan, Advocate for Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana. None for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH
, J. (ORAL)
1.
!""
#
$ %$ & %' ("
!" ")
*+,$ +-,$ !+),$ $ ! $ -* +, .(
-+,+&, / +0
&
, $ 1 $
0 $ 2 %$
" "
&
%'
3
! " # $% &'(! ")
* +*, -'./0% ! % " % 1
!
% "%% ! 2 3 40 " 5 6
52 7 %)( 1
! % ! !
%
%!! %
% 1
! %! %% 1
!% RITIKA 2026.04.30 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
! ! % 1
! " 5 %
" 8888% 8888
1
!% % ! ! 9 % %
% 97! ! ! "%
!
!
%
% 8888
% ! % % 8888
%% % "
% ! ! % 5
"
%! !!
!! 6 %% ! !! 1 :1
!-%$ ;404<=88881 >/+::+>0>=? -"
$
("
&
4
&
" 5
&
$
("" )"
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, aged 21 years, has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the basis of the statement made by the complainant. It is submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the appellant, as can be seen from a bare perusal of the FIR. It is further contended that therein, the primary role has been attributed to co- accused Vinod, from whom a danda was recovered; whereas no recovery was effected from the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the sweeping allegations leveled, particularly against the appellant. Moreover, similarly placed co-accused namely Imran, Sumit, Deepak and Manoj have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2025 passed in CRA-S-1767-2025; and orders dated 08.09.2025 passed in CRA-S-2077- 2025, CRA-S-1621-2025 and CRA-S-1364-2025. Learned counsel contends RITIKA 2026.04.30 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
that the appellant has already undergone custody of 01 year 04 months and 11 days. There is no other case registered against him.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned State counsel states that the appellant was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the appellant has undergone an actual custody of 01 year 04 months and 11 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 17.03.2025 and out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. B
$
&
56
&
3 9>: !!
"% % " !! " ! % " " ! ! 1 ! " % ! % # !
! % ! ! ! ! % " %
% " >> % %
!! ! %! " " ! % % %
% % ! !
9
9 !
# !"! RITIKA 2026.04.30 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
! ! ! "% !
% ! " !
"
%!
" " % 8 % 9 1" & $ !"-"*" 7 & 8 " $ $ " 01 year 04 months and 11 days" " 9 & $ $ $ & $ & $ $ $ 4 : " " 0 $ 4 " $ 4 $ 8 : $ $ 4 $ & : " '$ $
& " $ $ RITIKA 2026.04.30 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh ; : 8 <$ 5< ! " # $
" $
$
:
=
$
= /
/2 >
$ :
3 +,
&
" +,
?
/
+," +,
8
$
8
" +&,
$
" +&,
4
$
=
&
" " '
& $
&
" -" '
&
& :
$ RITIKA 2026.04.30 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
%
8
" )" 0
+,$ $
" (KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE April 29, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.04.30 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh