Pawan v. State Of Hparyana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.05.2026 Pawan ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

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

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh and Mr. Tarun Hooda, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the complainant.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

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.22 dated 25.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115, 351(3), 126, 103(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal.

2.

Initially one FIR came into being on the basis of secret information. It was with regard to an incident dated 24.01.2025, taken place in Village Aurangabad, wherein it was found that two cows and a calf were being transported in mini truck, and that with regard to abovementioned transportation, the FIR No.21 dated 25.01.2025 was lodged for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 5, 13(2) and 17 of the 'Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015' and Section 11 of the 'Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960', in Police Station Mundkati, against 'Ravi' (the driver of mini truck) and 'Yousuf'. 3.

As per prosecution, 'Ravi' and 'Yousuf' were thrashed by the public, and therefore, the statement of 'Ravi' was recorded, wherein he had stated that on the instructions of 'Yousuf', when he had loaded two cows and a calf in his mini truck, and was transporting them to the village of 'Yousuf', 'Yousuf' escorted him on his motorcycle and in Village Aurangabad, 8-10 persons intercepted their vehicle and thrashed them brutally. According to complainant, he and 'Yousuf' had suffered injuries. 4.

It is the case of the prosecution that after recording of abovementioned statement, both the injured, namely 'Ravi' and 'Yousuf', were got examined medico-legally and when 'Yousuf' passed away, because of injuries, suffered in the abovementioned incident, the FIR in question, i.e. FIR No.22 dated 25.01.2025, was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5.

Notice of motion.

6.

Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. However, no formal reply has been filed by the State and the learned State Counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition.

7.

Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed today. The same, too, be taken on record.

8.

Heard.

9.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case without any evidence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on 12.04.2026 the statement of complainant has been recorded during trial, as PW-3, who has not supported the prosecution case with regard to involvement of petitioner as an assailant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than one year and two months. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the co-accused of the petitioner.

10.

The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner along with other co-accused had inflicted injuries on the person of 'Ravi' and 'Yousuf', which led to the death of 'Yousuf'. According to learned counsel for the complainant, in the present case there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, with regard to involvement in the commission of crime, and that the CCTV footage pertaining to the instant case proves the presence of petitioner on the spot at the time of occurrence, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 11.

The record has been perused carefully.

12.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and two months;

ii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the similarly placed co-accused;

iii) that the star witness of the prosecution (eye-witness of the occurrence), i.e. PW-1 'Ravi Kumar', has not supported the prosecution case with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime;

iv) that in his cross-examination, the PW-3 Rashid (the complainant), recorded on 10.04.2026, has deposed that:- "It is correct that those who have been identified by me in the court today from among the accused persons present in the court, are only seen standing in the videos. It is also correct that the persons who were giving beatings, have not been identified by me in the court from among the accused present in the court, after seeing the video. Volunteered that those persons are not present in the court today."

v) that there is nothing on record to show that any active role was played by the petitioner in the commission of crime; vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of forty one prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so far;

viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 13.

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(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also 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 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.

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".

14.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another', (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".

15.

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

16.

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 the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

17.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

18.

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 abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (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 to disclose 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 the trial Court.

19.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.05.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No