Sameer Iqbal Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sameer Iqbal Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: petitioner to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned; observations not to be construed as opinion on merits; State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon misuse.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.343 dated 10.08.2024 under Sections 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram. +1 more

Court's answer

On the facts enumerated (petitioner in custody since 07.09.2024; sole material witness i.e. the complainant-injured examined and declared hostile during trial, as reflected in Annexure P-3; trial unlikely to conclude in the near future with 7 prosecution witnesses still to be examined), the Court deemed it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

Key takeaways

It was made clear that anything observed in the judgment shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶9
In case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach the Court to seek cancellation of bail.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — granted. Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., oral), 17.07.2025, allows CRM-M-15026-2025 filed under S.483 BNSS 2023 seeking regular bail for Sameer Iqbal, in custody since 07.09.2024 in FIR No.343 dt.10.08.2024 (Sections 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023), P.S. Palam Vihar, District Gurugram. Petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was any specific role or injury attributed to him therein (undisputed by State counsel on instructions); the sole material witness, the injured-complainant (PW-3), was examined and declared hostile during trial (deposition at Annexure P-3); trial unlikely to conclude soon as 7 prosecution witnesses remain. Bail conceded on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, with a caveat that nothing observed shall be an expression of opinion on merits and the State may seek cancellation on misuse of bail. No precedent relied upon.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238

CRM-M-15026-2025 Date of decision: July 17, 2025

SAMEER I Q BAL

.....Petitione r

Versus

STATE OF H ARYANA

.....Responden t

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Ad v ocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, H a ryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition has bee n filed under Section 483 o f Bharatiya N a garik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to th e petitioner in case FIR No.343 dated 10.08.2 0 24 under Sections 109, 115(2) , 190, 191(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nya y a Sanhita, 2023, registered a t Police Statio n Palam Vihar, District Gurugra m (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the pet i tioner submits that the fals e implication o f the petitioner in the instant c a se is evident from the fact tha t firstly, he w a s not named in the FIR in quest i on nor was any suspicion raise d qua his invo l vement in the assault, which w as carried out upon the injured - complainant ; pertinently, when the injure d -complainant stepped into th e witness box as PW-3, he failed to support t h e case of the prosecution, muc h less identif y the petitioner as being one of the alleged assailants, wh o participated i n the assault on the fateful day. It has been, therefore, submitte d that in the a forementioned facts and circu m stances, moreso when the sole

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.17 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-15026-2025

-2-

material wi t ness has been declared hostile, further incarceration of th e petitioner in the present case would serve no useful purpose as 7 prosecutio n witnesses sti l l remain to be examined.

Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavi t of the Assist a nt Commissioner of Police, U d yog, Gurugram on behalf of th e respondent- S tate in the Court today, which i s taken on record subject to al l just exceptio n s. 4. Per contra , learned State coun s el has vehemently opposed th e prayer and submissions made by the co u nsel opposite by drawing th e attention of t his Court to the allegations lev e lled in the FIR (Annexure P-1) . Learned Sta t e counsel, on instructions, ho w ever, has not disputed that th e petitioner w a s neither named in the FIR in q u estion nor was any specific rol e or injury at t ributed to him therein; on fu r ther instructions, learned Stat e counsel has a lso not disputed that the sole m aterial witness i.e. the injured - complainant , who was allegedly assaulted by the accused, including th e petitioner, h a s been examined and declared h ostile. 5. I have heard learned counsel f or the parties and perused th e relevant mat e rial placed on record. 6. The petitioner has been in cus t ody since 07.09.2024. The sol e material wit n ess i.e. the complainant-injur e d has been examined and wa s declared ho s tile during trial. Annexure P-3, which is the deposition of th e complainant - injured, also reflects the said fact. The trial is unlikely to

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.17 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-15026-2025 -3-

conclude in the near future as 7 prosecuti o n witnesses still remain to b e examined.

In the facts and circumstances a s enumerated hereinabove, thi s Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner a s the trial wou l d take considerable time to con c lude.

Accordingly, the instant petitio n is allowed, and the petitione r be admitted t o bail on his furnishing bail/su r ety bonds to the satisfaction o f the Trial Co u rt/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabov e shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of th e case.

Needless to add here, in case t he petitioner is found misusin g the concessi o n of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court t o seek cancell a tion of bail to him.

July 17, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.17 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh