Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 12 March, 2026
CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(119) CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
SAHIL GODARA @ BABLU
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRM-5366-2026 The instant application has been filed seeking preponement of the date of hearing in the main case, which is stated to be pending for 12.03.2026 i.e. today.
The instant application has been rendered infructuous, as the main case is already listed today for hearing.
Main case
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.225 dated 20.03.2025 under Sections 76, 79, 115, 126, 324(6), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS (Section 117(2) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act added later on), registered at Police Station Azad Nagar, Hisar, District Hisar. ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.03.12 17:51 2. I attest to the accuracy and The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-
integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M) -2-
"Statement of Chanderbhan S/o Kanshiram resident of Gangwa, aged 50 years, stated that I am a resident of the above mentioned address and work as a farmer. On 19.03.2025 at 05.30 PM, I and my son Sumit son of Chanderbhan and my daughter xxxxx daughter of Chanderbhan, resident of Gangwa, had gone to the field to collect the mustard crop. When I was collecting the mustard crop, at that time my son and daughter were at a little distance from me. At that time Bablu S/o Dharambir resident of Muklan and two other persons, who had muffled their faces, came in a white car. As soon as Bablu came, he hit my hand with the sword in his hand and two other persons, who had tied cloth on their mouths, hit my both legs with an iron rod. When my son Sumit and my daughter xxxxx rescued me, during that fight my daughter xxxxx clothes got torn. When I started leaving, those three persons blocked my way and said that today you have been saved, next time they will kill you and your son Sumit. The reason for the grudge is that I had purchased this land from Dharambir. To pressurize me to take back the land, they hit me unnecessarily. Legal action should be taken against these three and my motorcycle Bajaj CT100 was damaged by these three by hitting it with an iron rod. They damaged my motorcycle and caused damage to me and during the fight Rs.4000/- fell from my pocket. Strict action against Bablu son of Dharambir resident of Muklan and his two other companions should be taken. The statement has been written, it has been heard, everything is fine. SD/- Chanderbhan ATTESTED Sandeep ASI Police Station Azad Nagar."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant on the statement of the complainant, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner along with other two co-accused caused injuries to him and when his children came to his rescue, they molested his daughter. The material witnesses stand examined before the learned trial Court as PW-7 to PW-9, who have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Learned counsel has presented copies of the respective testimonies of the concerned PWs, which are accordingly taken on record. As such, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish the alleged offences against the petitioner. Moreover, as per the medical report of the complainant, even the injuries sought to be attributed to the petitioner were declared as being simple in nature. He further submits that the petitioner, aged about 30 years, has already undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 17 days.
ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.03.12 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M) -3-
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 17 days. He further submits that apart from the present one, the petitioner was nominted as an accused in four other cases, out of which, in three cases he is under-trial, and in one case he stands acquitted. Investigation in the present case is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. The charges were framed on 08.09.2025 and out of a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, 8 have been examined. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:
"21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22.From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.03.12 17:51 in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M) -4- great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
7. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 08.09.2025. Yet, only 8 out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 11 months and 17 days.
8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.03.12 17:51 determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M) -5- parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.
10. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnesses during the course of their examination before the trial Court, did not support the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. While it is settled that the probative value of such testimony is a matter for appreciation at the stage of final adjudication of the case, yet, even while refraining from entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, this factum cannot be completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.03.12 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-29920-2025 (O&M) -6- the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
13. It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
March 12, 2026
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.03.12 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment