Siddharth Alias Siddhu v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-29508-2026 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29508-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 27.05.2026 SIDDHARTH ALIAS SIDDHU ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Vikas Singh Chawra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNSS') in case bearing FIR No.370 dated 17.12.2025 under Sections 111(2), 115, 117(2), 126, 190, 191(3), 232(1), 324(4) and 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNS'), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat 2.

Allegations qua the present petitioner are that on 17.12.2025, when the complainant was going to court to depose against the coaccused, namely, Ankit, he was stopped and beaten by approximately 5/6 persons and was threatened not to depose against the said co-accused, namely, Ankit, who is facing trial.

CRM-M-29508-2026 (O&M) -23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of concession of regular bail on the following grounds: (I) the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR;

(II) investigation in the present case has been completed and challan stands presented;

(III) the injuries inflicted upon the complainant are simple in nature;

(IV) the petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2026; (V) the petitioner is having clean and clear antecedents and is not involved in any other case;

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On advance notice, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and, on instructions of ASI Manoj Kumar, opposed the concession of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner along with co-accused gave beatings to the complainant, who as a witness was going to court for his deposition. However, it is fairly admitted that the investigation stands completed and the petitioner is not involved in any other FIR.

6.

Custody certificate dated 25.05.2026 of the petitioner has been

CRM-M-29508-2026 (O&M) -3filed by learned State counsel and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has been behind the bars since 15.02.2026 i.e. for about 03 months and 11 days. 7.

Heard.

8.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds merit in the present petition on the following aspects:

(I) the petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2026 i.e. for 03 months and 11 days;

(II) he is not involved in any other case;

(III) the injuries in the present case are simple in nature; (IV) the investigation in the present case is complete; (V) trial is likely to take sufficient time to conclude and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for indefinite period.

9.

Concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability is to be decided by trial Court after appreciating evidence adduced by the parties and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

CRM-M-29508-2026 (O&M) -410.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 27.05.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO