Sahil Alias Nannu v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-12622-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.265 CRM-M-12622-2026 Decided on : 25.03.2026 Sahil @ Nannu ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :


  

 *** Present :

Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***   

 , J (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.556 dated 30.10.2025, registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 added later), at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sirsa. 2.

              
  

  

    

  

 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further

CRM-M-12622-2026 2 contends that the petitioner has no concern with the said offence.       o specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel       !""#  

$     %"!""#  & ' "!'(          

')         



          

    

       (

(

     Learned counsel   * + '  

        '    ,

  
     ,         !"""-(

, ..#/0"- The petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2025. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been presented, however, charges are yet to be framed. He further contends that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.        

  '      5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 months and 27 days; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges are yet to be framed;   

CRM-M-12622-2026 3 * + '  

   '

,

 
   ,  and the fact that the trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6.

Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".  /     

       +       

  

2

 3 4( 

     5+ ,  



       

   (              

   

      

'      

2

 3 4  

         7 "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."

CRM-M-12622-2026 4 7.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.      

  

 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 

  79 2: