Sandeep Alias Sonu v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M No.67168 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.67168 of 2025 Date of decision : 18.2.2026 Date of uploading : 18.2.2026 Sandeep @ Sonu .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.307 dated 7.9.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 201, 302 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak. 2.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'To, The Incharge, Police Post Titoli (Rohak), Subject: Regarding death of Vikas son of Pappu, resident of Nandgarh, Julana, Jind. Sir, Requested that I am Pappu son of Harphool, resident of Village Nandgarh, Tehsil Julana, District Jind. I am doing labour work for bread and butter of my family. I have four children, two sons, two daughters. My both daughters are married. My elder son Vikas who is aged about 28 years, used to drive a truck, On the occasion of Raksha Bandha, Vikash came to his house at
CRM-M No.67168 of 2025 -2village Nandgarh. Yesterday dated 06.09.2023 in the evening at around 6.30 PM, I and my son Vikas as well as other family members were present at home. Shomma sonu of Kartar alias Tinda and Sony brother of Shomma, called my son Vikas and took away with them from our house. Today on 07.09.2023 I received information that dead body of my son Vikas has been found lying in the fields near Drain No.8 near TitoliSundarpur. Then I and my family members reached in the fields near Bridge to Drain No.8 at Village Sundarpur and Titoli, where dead body of my son Vikas was lying in fields adjoining to passage of Drain No.8. I am sure that my son Vikas has been killed by Shomma and Sonu above mentioned of our village and son of their Bhua (paternal aunty), resident of Village Kathura, District Sonipat. His name I do not know.
They all three by conniving with each other have killed my son Vikas by giving fire shot in right side of chest and inflecting injures on his head with sharp edged weapon and threw the dead body near to passage of Drain No.8 with intention to destroy the same. Necessary legal action be taken against all the three. Sd/-Pappu Complainant Pappu son of Sh. Harphool, village Nandgarh, Tehsil Julana, District (Jind) Mob 8814853400 Dated 07.09.2023.'
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 9.9.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is a man aged 28 years with no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the evidence available against the petitioner is in the shape of disclosure/confessional statement. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.2.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
CRM-M No.67168 of 2025 -35. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 9.9.2023 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 24.1.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 5 have been examined and 01 has been given up till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- "19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."
6.1 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been
CRM-M No.67168 of 2025 -4brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.2 As per custody certificate dated 17.2.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years, 5 months and 5 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
CRM-M No.67168 of 2025 -5State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 18.2.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No