Deepak v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-52140-2025 -1-
Sr. No.
Particulars Details The date when the judgment is reserved 16.03.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.03.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 17.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable
!
" ### $
%&' ( ) *+*' ,
-( ./ 0
)) ) 0
0
)12 34& +%55*+*5 )
'+* '% 26,
*+5 %+% 26
/
7
0
)688549+48*+*'0 :
0
535+*+*' * $
12! )
0 :
CRM-M-52140-2025 -2-
0
:
"
:
) )
)
) +'55*+*5! )
) : 0
7: ; 0
)!
8
!
:
) <
0
) !
0
: :0
:
!
:0 : :$0 0
!
)
= :
)()
)
: 0
)
'
)
12
)
) !
$
8
!
+>55*+*5$ : :
)
:
)
!
% 2 )0
0
! :
535+*+*'
+* +>:
!
) :
+3 **
0 =:
+% +%:
$ !
0 :
? 0
)
)0 !
0
0
)
:
$
)
:
) )
*5
2 2 )
0 !
CRM-M-52140-2025 -3- >
)
0
)
:
0 $
0
)
:
$: !
0 =:
$ :0=
)
0
0
=
)0 0 :$
0
)
::
)
= 0
0 2
)
0 ! 4 $ 6
0 ) 3 $
!
8
)
) +'55*+*5$ !
:
+3
0 =:
The petitioner is in custody for a period of about 04 years, 04 months and 15 days. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is
CRM-M-52140-2025 -4a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is well settled proposition of law that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there is delay in conclusion of trial without there being any fault on the part of the accused, he becomes entitled to be released on bail. Since the trial of this case, apparently and evidently is shown to have been delayed, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case and if it appears that it is on account of any act and conduct of the petitioner that further delay is being caused in the conclusion of the trial and further subject to his abiding by the following conditions:- , /$he petitioner will not tamper with evidence during trial.
,
/!
0
6
= =: 0
,
/
:
<
CRM-M-52140-2025 -5- !
:
) 6
,
/
! 0 ) 0
& 0
conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail.
9.
It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. ! "
#$%&'(% )