Ajay vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -1-
239


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
Ajay …Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana …Respondent

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. AVS Parmar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Senior DAG, Haryana .
*
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS, 2023) [prior Section
439 of Cr.P.C.] with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No. 329
dated 30.08.2022, under Sections 302 of IPC, 1860 [now Section 103(1) of
BNS, 2023] {Sections 201, 202, 120-B IPC, 1860 [now Sections 238, 239,
61(2) of BNS, 2023] and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on,
Police Station Central, District Faridabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
not named in the FIR nor there is any averment in the FIR (Annexure P-1),
which even remotely connects him with the commission of crime. Learned
counsel further submits that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, which
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -2-
is weak kind of evidence and require higher degree of scrutiny. Even, no
witness had allegedly seen the occurrence and recovery of the knife was planted
on the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even Manoj
Singh, a witness of recovery was examined as PW3, who categorically stated
that knife was not having any blood stains. Still, as per the FSL report, human
blood was detected whereas as per the FSL report, human blood was allegedly
detected on the knife, which clearly proves that the knife in the present case was
planted by the police upon the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that
father of the deceased/complainant namely Jitender Singh was examined as
PW2, who admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen the alleged
incident and despite being aware of the alleged dispute between his son and the
petitioner, he had not blamed the petitioner in his first complaint. Even, no test
identification parade was conducted in the present case and the petitioner has
been involved only on the basis of suspicion. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel relies upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898 . It is thus
prayed that present petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the
main accused and it caused several stab injuries to the deceased. Even the knife
was found to be blood stained as per the FSL report. However, he could not
dispute the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 years
and 02 months. Even, the petitioner was never involved in any other criminal
case in the past.
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -3-
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
carefully.
5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
“ Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. CBI, through the Director General, 2012(8) SCC 495;
2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 880 ” as follows:
“14. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra), another
Constitution Bench considered the right to speedy trial and opined
that the delay is dependent on the circumstances of each case,
because reasons for delay will vary. This Court held :
"84. The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a
provision of Magna Carta. This principle has also been
incorporated into the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776
and from there into the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution
of United States of America which reads, "In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial...". It may be pointed out, in this connection,
that there is a Federal Act of 1974 called 'Speedy Trial Act'
establishing a set of time-limits for carrying out the major
events, e.g., information, indictment, arraignment, in the
prosecution of criminal cases. [See Black's Law Dictionary,
6th Edn. page 1400].
85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important
safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to
minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation
and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an
accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest
in providing a speedy trial. This right has been actuated in
the recent past and the courts have laid down a series of
decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. In
fact, lot of cases are coming before the courts for quashing
of proceedings on the ground of inordinate and undue delay
stating that the invocation of this right even need not await
formal indictment or charge.
86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an
essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -4-
to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by
arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all
stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may
result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time
of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a
finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that
the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly
reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
87. This Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary,
AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1360, State of Bihar while dealing
with Article 21 of the Constitution of India has observed
thus: (SCC p. 89, para 5)
"No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick
trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would
fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that
speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably
expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.
The question which would, however, arise is as to what
would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence
is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his
liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in
violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would
he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the
charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him
after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after
such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right
under Article 21."
"92. Of course, no length of time is per se too long to pass
scrutiny under this principle nor the accused is called upon
the show the actual prejudice by delay of disposal of cases.
On the other hand, the court has to adopt a balancing
approach by taking note of the possible prejudices and
disadvantages to be suffered by the accused by avoidable
delay and to determine whether the accused in a criminal
proceeding has been deprived of his right of having speedy
trial with unreasonable delay which could be identified by
the factors - (1) length of delay, (2) the justification for the
delay, (3) the accused's assertion of his right to speedy trial,
and (4) prejudice caused to the accused by such delay.
However, the fact of delay is dependent on the
circumstances of each case because reasons for delay will
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -5-
vary, such as delay in investigation on account of the
widespread ramification of crimes and its designed network
either nationally or internationally, the deliberate absence of
witness or witnesses, crowded dockets on the file of the
court etc."
6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others
v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 429 has held as under:-
“Bail or Jail”- at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage - largely
hinged on judicial discretion. The learned Judge held that personal
liberty was too precious a value of our constitutional system
recognised under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it was
a great trust exercisable not casually but judicially, with lively
concern for the cost to the individual and the community. It was
further held that deprivation of personal freedom must be founded
on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare
objectives of society specified in the Constitution. The learned
Judge quoted Lord Russel who had said that bail was not to be
withheld as a punishment and that the requirements as to bail were
merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. According
to V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., the principal rule to guide release on bail
should be to secure the presence of the applicant to take judgment
and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with
imprisonment. After holding that it makes sense to assume that a
man on bail has a better chance to prepare and present his case than
one remanded in custody the learned Judge observed that if public
justice is to be promoted mechanical detention should be demoted.
7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc Vs The State of Punjab, AIR 1980
SC 1632 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of
the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions. The
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -6-
Court has also observed that in which case bail should be granted
and in which case it should be refused is a matter of discretion. The
court found it interesting to note that as long back as in 1924 it was
held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra Vs. King
Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 , that the object of bail was to
secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test
to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be
granted or refused was whether it was probable that the party
would appear to take his trial and that it was indisputable that bail
was not to be withheld as a punishment. The Supreme Court also
referred to the observation of the Allahabad High Court in K.N.
Joglekar Vs. Emperor, AIR 1931 Allahabad 504 , that Section 498
of the Old Code which corresponds to Section 439 of the New
Code, conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide
powers to grant bail which were not handicapped by the
restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the
present Section 437. The Allahabad High Court had also observed
that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle
governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498
and that the only principle which was established was that the
discretion should be exercised judiciously. The Supreme Court
referred also the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor
Vs. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356, wherein it was
held that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in
the Cr.P.C. was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception, that as a presumably innocent person, the accused
person is entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after
his own case and to establish his innocence and that an accused
person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look
after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in
custody. The High Court had also held that it would be very
unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which
would bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -7-
legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfettered.
According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise
from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to
make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular
classes bail may be granted but not in other classes. The Supreme
Court apparently approved the above views and observations and
held (vide paragraph 30) as follows :
"It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not
depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial
verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of
universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or
refusal of bail."
8. At this stage, it is observed that the object of the bail is to secure
the presence of the accused at the trial only. It is also observed that the object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventive and deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person
will stand his trial when called upon. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed
in catena of judgments that when a person is punished by denial of bail in
respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be
contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except
in cases where there is reason to believe that he may influence the witnesses. It
is appropriate to say that pre-conviction detention should not be resorted to,
except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material
that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty.
9. From the allegations levelled in the present FIR, it is apparent that
serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the present case,
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -8-
however, the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. Any
delay in conducting the trial on the part of the prosecution violates the right to
life, which is guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Even the learned State counsel has failed to prove on record that the trial
proceedings have been delayed by the present petitioner in any manner.
10. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since
01.09.2022 i.e. last more than 04 years and 02 months and as per the record, he
was never involved in any other criminal activity in the past. Only 07
prosecution witnesses including the complainant and other material witnesses
have been examined by the prosecution. However, 19 witnesses are yet to be
examined and conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. At this stage,
keeping in view the long period of custody suffered by the petitioner as an
under trial prisoner, this Court finds it a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.
Thus, without commenting any further on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) 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) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the
dates fixed for hearing of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court
proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court
concerned.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if
already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the
same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRM-M-28440-2026 (O&M) -9-
(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the
concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of
residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used
by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of
place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details
with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.
(vi) In case, the petitioner involves in any other criminal
activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed
seriously and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a
petition for cancellation of bail granted to him.
(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two sureties and may
also impose any other condition, in accordance with law,
while accepting the bail bonds and surety bonds of the peti-
tioner.
11. In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned
above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him
shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an
application in this regard.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
02.11.2026 JUDGE
Sunil
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUNIL
2026.11.04 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document