Ranjan Alias Kunal Bakshi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.02.2026 Ranjan @Kunal Bakshi ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

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

Mr. Deepak Basatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition is the first petition for bail, 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.125 dated 12.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(2), 109, 111(2), 61(2), and 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar 2.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Deepak Kumar', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by above-named complainant that earlier with regard to an incident of deadly attack on his brother 'Ishant Sharma', a case was lodged against Prince Bairagi, Rhythm Sharma, and Babbu etc., and that in the abovementioned case, the petitioner was examined as a witness. As per complainant, his statement was also recorded in the Court, but the assailants

Prince Bairagi, Rhythm Sharma, and Babbu etc. were nursing grudge against him. According to complainant, on 11.08.2025 he received a call from mobile No.84101-11119 and the caller projected himself to be a well-wisher of the complainant and called upon the complainant to meet him. As per complainant, when he along with his friend Imran went to 'Holy Mother School' in Kansapur to meet the abovementioned person, there he saw a young boy.

3.

As per complainant at that time a group of 4-5 persons travelling in a grey colour Baleno car came, they hit Baleno car over the complainant with an intention to kill and thereafter, Prince Bairagi, Rhythm Sharma, Babbu and Gagan armed with steel rods alighted from the car and assaulted him. According to complainant, Babu took his legs in grip, where Prince Bairagi, Rhythm Sharma, Babbu, Gagan and other boy attacked him with steel rods. It was further alleged by the complainant that after causing injuries, the assailants fled from the spot.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

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. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

6.

Heard.

7.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that he is a young boy of 24 years only. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the commission of crime any specific role to the petitioner, particularly with regard to causing of injuries, has not been attributed, and qua that aspect, even the CCTV footage does not support the prosecution case. 8.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner is the person, who had called the injured to the spot, and thus, the petitioner has a direct nexus with the commission of crime. As per learned State Counsel, at the time of commission of crime the petitioner was also present on the spot, and therefore, the role played by the petitioner is a central role in the commission of crime.

9.

The record has been perused carefully.

10.

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 four months;

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of crime. Even the weapon being used by the petitioner and the injury caused by him have not been detailed in the FIR;

iv) that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital;

v) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vi) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup 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; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate 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(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, 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 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.

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 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".

13.

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".

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

15.

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 for the benefit 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 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.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 24.02.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No