Suraj v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-18165-2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18165-2026 Date of decision: 20.04.2026 SURAJ ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*** Subhas Mehla, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking interim regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.125 dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat, Haryana. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2025 and has been in judicial custody since 21.05.2025. It is further contended that the petitioner has been diagnosed with Hepatitis-B with high viral load, along with continuous complaints of jaundice, weakness, and other related medical complications. Despite repeated medical attention in jail, adequate and specialized treatment is not being provided to him and thus, prayed for interim bail for a period of three months while imposing appropriate conditions upon the petitioner.

SONIA PURI 2026.04.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18165-2026 -24.

In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana has put in appearance and opposed the grant of interim regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is being provided medical treatment on regular basis at PGIMS, Rohtak and in support thereof, has handed over a copy of Medical Report of the petitioner which is taken on record. Learned counsel further submitted that allegations against the present petitioner are serious in nature and in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is a genuine apprehension that the petitioner may abscond or flee from the process of justice and may further tamper with the evidence. 5.

Heard and paper book perused.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and contentions raised by learned counsel for the State and the fact that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 103(1) BNS (Section 302 IPC) and proper medical treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak, is already being provided to the petitioner on regular basis, as such, this Court is not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner and the present petition is hereby dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 20.04.2026 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No SONIA PURI 2026.04.21 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document