IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11968-2026 Date of decision: 06.04.2026 KARAMBIR SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.465 dated 19.07.2025 registered under Sections 61(2), 109(1), 3(5) BNS & sections 13(2)/17 of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and under section of 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that petitioner along with his associates, committed a crime by transporting cattle for slaughter, cruelly overcrowding them in a vehicle, and opening fire at the Inspector and the police party using an illegal country-made pistol with the intention to kill them. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that no gunshot injury has been attributed to the petitioner as in fact, the police party had fired upon the petitioner which hit his leg and in order to save themselves the police has concocted a false story and lodged the present FIR. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2025. The investigation in the case is complete; challan has been presented; charges have been framed; challan also stands presented; out of 25 prosecution witnesses none has been examined. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars.

Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report and custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 08 months; investigation in the case is complete; challan has been presented; charges have been framed; out of 25 prosecution witnesses none has been examined; and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

06.04.2026 JUDGE puneet