Parhlad Singh vs State of Haryana

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.270 dated 19.06.2026 under Sections 256, 316(5), 238B and 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

Custody certificate dated 14.08.2026 filed in Court today, is taken on record.

On a complaint submitted by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ratia, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation is that the petitioner and the Malkhana Moharrar did not actually destroy the complete stock of the English liquor which was supposed to be destroyed, though it had so been mentioned in the records. Upon checking, it was found that 1977 bottles of liquor, which were stated to have been destroyed, were actually not destroyed. It also came during an inquiry conducted into the matter that the petitioner, on 15.06.2026, got six cases of liquor loaded in his vehicle.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is a decorated police officer with no criminal antecedents. He submits that the present matter appears to be a result of a misunderstanding. He further submits that the petitioner was due for promotion and has been framed by his counter-parts. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since the day of his arrest i.e. 20.06.2026; almost 02 months have gone by; investigation stands completed; final report stands submitted; charges have been framed today; 25 prosecution witnesses are to be examined; trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that the allegations are serious and that the petitioner being a police officer indulged in a crime which does not behove of an officer in the police service. She, however, concedes that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

No doubt, the allegations are serious. However, equally important is the fact that the petitioner is also a police officer and is in custody for the last almost 02 months. As to whether the petitioner has actually committed the crime or not shall be determined when the trial concludes. Investigation stands completed. Final report stands submitted. Charges have been framed today itself and, therefore, to examine 25 prosecution witnesses, a substantial time shall be taken. Apart from the present case, there is no other case against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.