Vijay Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Date of uploading: 19.01.2026








 

  
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:

Mr. Akshit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. 


  


 


***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 
 
  
 





 


  !"

#$

%



%






   

&'(
$
!)
 
*))!*)*+
% 







  


  
*) 
*)+
"!, -
"".,*-
"".,"-
""!
" )

#$

 

 


  
/ 


*

0
% 2





&'(



 



  


&'(

*)!*)*+


  



2
3




4


5
5 

%

2


2  %
6


%

 

 
7

2

5 
 

 
 
 
  


  %



  




%
 2



 




8 
8


/ 


 
 

 


5 





1

2

 

P a g e | 2

  
  %


%

 

 

 
7

2
6
 

2



 
2 
 
'

% 

 

2
  %
9%
 2 


 %


 

 
5
1
6
 

5 


 
 



4


5 
2

  2


 

 




 

  %
%

  
:1 
 
 2

5 
5  %
04 
  %

9%
  

 

;





% 




&'(
5 
% 

%



   


3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that there is no tangible evidence much less a private prosecution witness is available against the petitioner, as per the challan. He has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 4 months and 16 days. 9  


   

    has further argued that the petitioner is a young man aged 25 years. He has further submitted that as on today there is no other pending FIR against the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

9  
 


 has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 9  
 



 










 
))*)*.

8 
5 






P a g e | 3 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14.10.2025. Total 9 witnesses have been cited, out of which one has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to the whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall be gone into 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 rights of either of the parties. $ %


%  
 

 %
5 

 





   
  2


 <  

 %
5 

2

%

1   6.1.

As per the custody certificate dated 10.01.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 4 months and 16 days. As per the said custody certificate, there is no other pending FIR against the petitioner.

Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned 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.

P a g e | 4 (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 State/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.

11.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE January 19, 2026
 Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No