Parveen vs State of Haryana

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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.0676 dated 08.10.2025 under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 109(1) & 118 (2) of BNS added later on, registered at Police Station HTM, District Hisar (Haryana).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, primarily on account of his brother having earlier got an FIR registered against the complainant-side. Learned counsel has further submitted that, upon culmination of the investigation qua the petitioner, the challan already stands presented. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a young man aged about 21 years, with no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel has further urged that the FIR in question was registered after an unexplained delay of two days. The statement of one injured witness was recorded on 10.10.2025 by the police, whereas the incident in question pertains to 06.10.2025, in respect of which the FIR was registered on 08.10.2025. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

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 regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 29.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

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

The petitioner was arrested on 14.04.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 10.07.2026. Total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel 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 brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

As per custody certificate dated 29.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 months and 15 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.

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:-

The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

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.

The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

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 for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.