Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Gopal Alias Sonu Bajaj vs State Of Haryana on 28 January, 2026
240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3521-2026
Date of Decision: 28.01.2026
Date of uploading: 28.01.2026
KRISHAN GOPAL ALIAS SONU BAJAJ ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate and
Mr. Vijesh Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, 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.639 dated 16.10.2025 under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 3-B, 4, 5, 6, 18, 23, 25, 27 and 29 of PNDT Act, 1994, registered at Police Station Shahbad, Kurukshetra.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in the illegal sex determination test of pregnant ladies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in SANGEETA 2026.01.28 18:50 question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3521-2026 2 saddled with the responsibility of sole bread earner of his family. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case, investigation qua the FIR is complete and challan already stands presented and culmination of trial will take long. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. 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 custody certificate dated 27.1.2026 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 16.10.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 11.12.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is not in dispute that none has been examined till date. 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 tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 27.1.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 3 months and 12 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the appellant is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum SANGEETA 2026.01.28 18:50 cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3521-2026 3 bail to the appellant 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, if not required in any other case, 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.SANGEETA 2026.01.28 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3521-2026 4
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 petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
January 28, 2026 JUDGE
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SANGEETA
2026.01.28 18:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document