Krishan v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.02.2026 Krishan ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present :

Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate and Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.

Ms. Anu Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is 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.173 dated 29.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, 140(3), 190, 191(2), 333, 351(2) and 61, (Section 111(1) of BNS added later on), of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri 2.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Vijay', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 28.08.2025 at about 10:00 pm, a black colour Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.HR19-R-9732, belonging to

'Rahul @Gole', carrying five persons came to his hotel. According to complainant, they were Aman, Krishna, Manjeet @Baniya, Praveena @Basu and Amit. The complainant further stated that three persons alighted from the car and demanded monthly payment. As per complainant they forcibly snatched Rs.6000-7000/- from the pocket of complainant and thrashed him with slaps and punches. It was also alleged by the complainant that with an intention to kidnap him, they all tried to forcibly dragged him out of the hotel, and that he was let-off only when he assured them to pay monthly to the assailants.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

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 status report as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5.

Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of the complainant has been filed. The same be taken on record.

6.

Heard.

7.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the CCTV footage of the incident is available, wherein the entry of the petitioner in the hotel is not visible. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of petitioner three other persons are visible in CCTV footage and thus, this claim of the prosecution stands falsified that

petitioner was involved in the incident of thrashing or kidnapping of the complainant.

8.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that he was involved in the commission of crime, and that the disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner supports the prosecution case.

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 five months;

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not visible in the CCTV footage; iv) that no weapon of offence was allegedly used by the petitioner at the time of commission of crime, and therefore, no weapon has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that the investigation in this case is already complete, as the challan has been filed by the Investigating Agency. Thus, 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, as the same is yet to commence and charges are yet to be framed;

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.

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