Surjeet Kumar @ Sardar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 Surjeet Kumar @ Sardar ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:

Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.96 dated 14.02.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B) (a), 54 and 59 of Arms Act, Police Station Azad Nagar, District Hisar. 2.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'ASI Raj Kumar', who reported that on 14.02.2026 when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for crime checking and patrolling, a person was spotted near village Mangali Suratia. According to above named police officer in view of suspicious conduct of the above mentioned person, he was stopped, checked and on search of his person a 9 MM pistol and 4 live cartridges were recovered from his possession.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned

CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) 2 statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4.

The learned State counsel have filed custody certificate of the petitioner and reply to the petition. The same be taken on record. 5.

Heard.

6.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration in the present case for a period of more than four months and twelve days, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7.

In response to above mentioned arguments the learned State counsel has contended that the petitioner is a person who is having a long history of criminal cases as he has been previously prosecuted in 21 cases of similar nature and out of abovesaid 21 cases in 6 cases he has been convicted. According to learned State counsel in view of criminal history of the petitioner he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

8.

With regard to abovementioned arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in 15 cases the petitioner has been acquitted which shows that there is history of false implication of petitioner in criminal cases.

9.

The record has been perused carefully.

10.

A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than four

CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) 3 months and twelve days;

ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of offence is imprisonment up to 7 years;

iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that there is history of false implication of petitioner in criminal cases and that is why he has been acquitted in 15 criminal cases;

vi) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 11.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is

CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) 4 that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

12.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation' (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice". 13.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) 5 Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently". 14.

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

15.

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 16.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-

CRM-M No.23474 of 2026 (O&M) 6 i) that 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 other authority; ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court.

17.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 03.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No