SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MUNIR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-71097-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(125) CRM-M-71097-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 27.02.2026

MUNIR SINGH

... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

**** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant

of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.309 dated 27.09.2025 registered

under Sections 110, 115, 118(2), 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the

statement got recorded by the complainant Vishal alleging therein that on the

evening of 26.09.2025, he was present at Krishna Market alongwith his friends

Harsh and Manish, when the petitioner accompanied by the co-accused formed

an unlawful assembly and opened an assault upon him. The petitioner struck

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 21:28:45 :::

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-71097-2025 (O&M) 2

blow with the gear-welded rod on his head, whereas the other accused also

caused injuries on his person with their respective weapons. When his friends

rushed for his rescue, they too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants

and then they fled away.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.

The petitioner was arrested on 27.09.2025. The weapon used in the crime was

recovered at his instance. The co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now

stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He

is in custody since 27.09.2025. The trial will take considerable time to

conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is,

therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned state counsel while relying upon the status

report, has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

He alongwith the coaccused had voluntary caused simple as well as grievous

injuries on the person of the complainant and one of his friends. The material

witnesses are yet to be examined. There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating

those witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. His antecedents are not clean. It is,

therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 21:28:45 :::

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-71097-2025 (O&M) 3

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for both the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly

with the co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused injuries on the person

of the complainant and his two friends. The injury that has been attributed to the

petitioner has been opined to be grievous in nature. The allegations prima facie

make out a case for commission of the subject offences as against the petitioner.

However, he is in custody since 27.09.2025. He is not required for further

investigation. The trial is yet to commence and obviously it will take

considerable time to conclude. As such no fruitful purpose would be served by

continued detention of the petitioner. The well settled proposition of law is that

bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be

replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure

appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive.

In view of the discussion as made above, this Court is of the opinion that a case

is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the

petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to

his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned

tri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top