##PAGE1##

CRM-M-39806-2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226

CRM-M-39806-2026 Date of decision : 17(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)

Date of uploading :(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)

Joginder Alias Bantu ………….Petitioner Versus

State of Haryana …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Karan Singh, (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:1)

(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:2)ti(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:18)

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.360 dated 03.10.2025 under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, registered at Police Station

Barauda, District Sonipat.

2. The FIR in question pertains to the injury(s) inflicted/caused to

one Sandeep.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the police had initially registered the FIR in question under Section 118(1) of the BNS, whereinafter the petitioner was released on bail on 04.10.2025 itself by

JATIN

2026.09.17 17:59

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-39806-2026 -2-

the police. Subsequently, upon addition of Section 109 of the BNS on 24.11.2025, the petitioner came to be arrested on 25.11.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has not misused the concession of the said bail and has never ever tried to intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel has further urged that the offence under Section 109 of the BNS is not made out against the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 09 months and that the delay in trial

is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 15.09.2026 in

Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner was initially arrested by the police on 04.10.2025 and was released on bail by the police on the same day. Subsequently, upon addition of Section 109 of the BNS on 24.11.2025, the petitioner was again arrested on 25.11.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands filed. Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of

JATIN

2026.09.17 17:59

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-39806-2026 -3-

Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof

reads as under:-

“19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrin