CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 ***** CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 Date of decision : 23.7.2026 Date of uploading : 23.7.2026 Vishal @ Jugnu ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.422 dated 30.11.2024 under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 61, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 238-A of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to kidnapping and murder of Rupak-son of the FIR-complainant (Samander), by Saurabh, Punit and 8-10 other boys, who had kidnapped and hit him (deceased Rupak) with poker (Sua), sticks, rods and gandasi. On the next day during treatment, Rupak succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -2-

the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the form of disclosure statement of co-accused Punit @ Ajit, which would not withstand the judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel has further urged that no active/substantive role has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year and 7 months & the trial is procrastinating and the folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply dated 14.5.2025, which is already on record. Relevant thereof reads thus:

‘5. That as far as the specific role of the petitioner/accused Vishal is concerned, that petitioner/accused in connivance with the co-accused persons actively participated in the criminal conspiracy, kidnapping and assault of deceased Rupak. That the petitioner/accused Vishal along with other co-accused persons reached village Kabarel in Bolero vehicle No. HR-80-6877 (same was recovered by the co-accused Pona alias Pawan) armed with sticks and iron rods, forcibly abducted deceased Rupak and took him to Tibba Basti, Mandi Adampur, where he was mercilessly assaulted with sticks, iron rods, kicks and fists in furtherance of their common intention. That the petitioner/accused Vishal remained actively associated with the co-accused persons throughout the commission of the offence and thereafter fled away from the hospital along with the co-accused persons after admitting the injured Rupak.’ Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -3- custody certificate dated 22.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 4.3.2025. Total 31 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 01 has been examined till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-“19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”

6.1 The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -4- tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.2 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the petitioner not being ascribed any specific role or having given any specific injury to the deceased, the petitioner’s complicity coming forward primarily on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Punit @ Ajit, the petitioner not apparently having any clear motive to commit the murder as also the under trial custody period of the petitioner, i.e. 01 year, 7 months and 7 days, this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail.

6.3 As per custody certificate dated 22.7.2026, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -5- 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 satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/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 cell-phone 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 concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -6- petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 23.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 ***** CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 Date of decision : 23.7.2026 Date of uploading : 23.7.2026 Vishal @ Jugnu ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.422 dated 30.11.2024 under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 61, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 238-A of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to kidnapping and murder of Rupak-son of the FIR-complainant (Samander), by Saurabh, Punit and 8-10 other boys, who had kidnapped and hit him (deceased Rupak) with poker (Sua), sticks, rods and gandasi. On the next day during treatment, Rupak succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -2-

the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the form of disclosure statement of co-accused Punit @ Ajit, which would not withstand the judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel has further urged that no active/substantive role has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year and 7 months & the trial is procrastinating and the folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply dated 14.5.2025, which is already on record. Relevant thereof reads thus:

‘5. That as far as the specific role of the petitioner/accused Vishal is concerned, that petitioner/accused in connivance with the co-accused persons actively participated in the criminal conspiracy, kidnapping and assault of deceased Rupak. That the petitioner/accused Vishal along with other co-accused persons reached village Kabarel in Bolero vehicle No. HR-80-6877 (same was recovered by the co-accused Pona alias Pawan) armed with sticks and iron rods, forcibly abducted deceased Rupak and took him to Tibba Basti, Mandi Adampur, where he was mercilessly assaulted with sticks, iron rods, kicks and fists in furtherance of their common intention. That the petitioner/accused Vishal remained actively associated with the co-accused persons throughout the commission of the offence and thereafter fled away from the hospital along with the co-accused persons after admitting the injured Rupak.’ Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -3- custody certificate dated 22.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 4.3.2025. Total 31 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 01 has been examined till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-“19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”

6.1 The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -4- tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.2 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the petitioner not being ascribed any specific role or having given any specific injury to the deceased, the petitioner’s complicity coming forward primarily on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Punit @ Ajit, the petitioner not apparently having any clear motive to commit the murder as also the under trial custody period of the petitioner, i.e. 01 year, 7 months and 7 days, this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail.

6.3 As per custody certificate dated 22.7.2026, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -5- 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 satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/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 cell-phone 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 concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.22582 of 2026 -6- petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 23.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.23 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document