CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 13.07.2026 Satvinder Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.265 dated 14.12.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 105 and 123 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Sections 304 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860], Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra. 2. The FIR of this came into being at the instance of ‘Raj Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his son namely Harsh was a driver by profession and that due to bad company, he used to consume drug. According to complainant on 14.12.2025 his son had died due to overdose of the drugs VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 2 3. According to prosecution in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of investigation on 03.01.2026 the complainant got his supplementary statement recorded wherein he stated that the drug which was used by his son and which was responsible for his death was supplied to him by the petitioner. It was also stated by the complainant that in the past also, he had warned the petitioner not to supply any drug to his son Harsh. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. Reply has been filed by the State today. The same be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The cost be deposited in the A/c No.45115269583 being maintained by ‘Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund’. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the supplementary statement of complainant is not reliable in view of the fact that as per statement itself, in the past he had warned the petitioner and asked him not to supply drug to his son. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 3 the name of petitioner should have been mentioned in the first statement. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that except the abovementioned supplementary statement of complainant, there is no evidence, collected by the Investigating Agency, against the petitioner. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel the deceased was using SIM No.98123-09688 and that on the date of incident, and earlier also, he was in constant touch with the petitioner. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner has long history of being involved in similar type of cases and that he has been prosecuted for offences under the NDPS Act in the past. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of six months and one day; ii. that there is no eyewitness account in the present case; iii. that the supplementary statement of complainant prima facie seems to be an afterthought, as the name of the petitioner was not mentioned, by the complainant, in his first statement;

iv. that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of 12 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; v. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 4 vi. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

12. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 5

number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 6 for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

16. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 7 in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 13.07.2026 Satvinder Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.265 dated 14.12.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 105 and 123 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Sections 304 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860], Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra. 2. The FIR of this came into being at the instance of ‘Raj Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his son namely Harsh was a driver by profession and that due to bad company, he used to consume drug. According to complainant on 14.12.2025 his son had died due to overdose of the drugs VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 2 3. According to prosecution in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of investigation on 03.01.2026 the complainant got his supplementary statement recorded wherein he stated that the drug which was used by his son and which was responsible for his death was supplied to him by the petitioner. It was also stated by the complainant that in the past also, he had warned the petitioner not to supply any drug to his son Harsh. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. Reply has been filed by the State today. The same be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The cost be deposited in the A/c No.45115269583 being maintained by ‘Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund’. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the supplementary statement of complainant is not reliable in view of the fact that as per statement itself, in the past he had warned the petitioner and asked him not to supply drug to his son. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 3 the name of petitioner should have been mentioned in the first statement. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that except the abovementioned supplementary statement of complainant, there is no evidence, collected by the Investigating Agency, against the petitioner. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel the deceased was using SIM No.98123-09688 and that on the date of incident, and earlier also, he was in constant touch with the petitioner. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner has long history of being involved in similar type of cases and that he has been prosecuted for offences under the NDPS Act in the past. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of six months and one day; ii. that there is no eyewitness account in the present case; iii. that the supplementary statement of complainant prima facie seems to be an afterthought, as the name of the petitioner was not mentioned, by the complainant, in his first statement;

iv. that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of 12 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; v. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 4 vi. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

12. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 5

number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 6 for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

16. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32373-2026 (O&M) 7 in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document