IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 JATIN ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.

****

Present: Mr. Yash Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-4993-2026 Allowed as prayed for.

MAIN CASE This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in case FIR No.90 dated 12.05.2020 under Sections 379-A, 392, 506 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Badli, District Jhajjar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had snatched Rs.50,000/- and a mobile phone from the complainant and attempted to kill him. He was previously granted bail twice by the trial Court, but he jumped the bail and violated the terms and conditions imposed upon him while granting bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false and concocted. The petitioner has been facing trial since 2020 and presently, he is confined in jail since 29.04.2025. It is further contended that the total custody period of the petitioner is 01 year, 09 months and 22 days. It is further stated that the trial against the petitioner has not concluded yet and the same may take some more time to conclude.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice and vehemently opposes the petition for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is habitual of jumping bail and in case the present petition is allowed, then there is every possibility of misusing the concession of bail by the petitioner once again. Custody certificate filed by the State Counsel is taken on record. As per the said certificate, the total custody period of the petitioner is 01 year, 09 months and 22 days.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been facing trial since 2020 and has already undergone a total custody of 01 year, 09 months and 22 days and the trial has not concluded yet, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Moreover, bail is rule and jail is exception. Since the continuous incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, he is entitled to regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

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

(H.S. GREWAL)

FEBRUARY 10, 2026. JUDGE

Rajender