Vishal alias Gullu vs State of Haryana

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 554 dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 110 (earlier Section 308 IPC), 115 (earlier Section 321 IPC), 123 (earlier Section 328 IPC), 3(5) (earlier Section 34 IPC) and 351(2) (earlier Section 506 IPC) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of a minor girl, whose name has been withheld. She stated that she was a student and, after commencing her studies in Class 9th, she became acquainted with two girls, namely Janvi and Mannu, who allegedly introduced her to intoxicant tablets. She continued consuming the said tablets and eventually became addicted thereto. It is further the case of the prosecution that, after leaving her home, the minor girl started roaming around the area near Bus Stand, Sirsa and Civil Hospital, Sirsa. During this period, she allegedly came into contact with the petitioner, namely Gullu, and co-accused Jyoti, who allegedly started providing intoxicant substances to her and asked her to sell the same on their behalf. On her refusal, they allegedly beat her. She further stated that she was introduced to other persons, including Pandey, and was provided tablets and capsules both for sale and for her own consumption. The minor girl further alleged that while she was undergoing treatment at Civil Hospital, Sirsa, the petitioner and other accused persons used to visit her and provide intoxicant substances to her. She also alleged that the accused persons used to keep vigil around the Civil Hospital and supply intoxicants to drug addicts. She expressed her desire to give up the addiction and return to her family. She also alleged that co-accused Babu Lal had threatened her that, in case she failed to sell intoxicants, she would be sold for a sum of ₹30,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations levelled against him, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences invoked. It is submitted that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and there is no allegation of any recovery of intoxicant substance from his possession. It is further submitted that, as per the statement of the minor herself, she had left her home about one year prior to the registration of the FIR and was roaming around the Bus Stand and Civil Hospital, Sirsa, owing to her addiction to intoxicant substances. Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner administered any intoxicant to the minor against her will or with any intention to cause her hurt.

Learned counsel further submits that there is no independent witness corroborating the allegations against the petitioner and that no material has been placed on record to establish any motive or previous enmity between the petitioner and the victim. It is also submitted that the parents of the minor did not lodge any complaint when she allegedly left her home, which, according to learned counsel, casts doubt upon the prosecution version. It is contended that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2025 and has already undergone more than nine months of incarceration. The investigation stands completed and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. No further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and nothing remains to be recovered from him.

Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Jyoti has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 in CRM-M-35345 of 2026, while co-accused Rohit has also been granted bail vide order dated 07.08.2026. Thus, the petitioner also deserves the concession of bail on the ground of parity.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 25.08.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 09 months and 02 days.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years and the petitioner has been specifically named in the statement of the victim for allegedly supplying intoxicating substances to her.

Be that as it may, this Court has considered the fact that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of more than nine months since 21.11.2025. The allegations against the petitioner are that he, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly supplied intoxicating tablets/capsules to the victim, who is a minor girl. The allegations are primarily based upon the statement of the victim recorded during the course of investigation. It is not disputed that the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and, as submitted, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. This Court also takes note of the fact that co-accused Jyoti has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-35345-2026, and co-accused Rohit has also been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 07.08.2026. Though the role attributed to each accused has to be considered independently, the said circumstance is certainly relevant while adjudicating the prayer for grant of bail to the present petitioner. This Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the victim is a minor. However, keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, presentation of the challan, the fact that no further custodial interrogation is required and the grant of bail to the co-accused, this Court is of the considered view that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-