Allowed¶26

Kamaldeep v. State of Haryana

Bail – Regular bail

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2026CRM-M/10290/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted under S.483 BNSS; FIR No.1010/2024 P.S. Shahbad Kurukshetra; S.309(4), 238, 111 BNS challan (S.304 BNS deleted, S.309(3) added); snatching of phones/wallets with Rs.13,000/- and Rs.1 lakh debit-card withdrawal; FIR against unknown persons, no TIP; custody ~1½ years; charges framed 03.06.2026, no PW examined; parity with co-accused bailed in CRM-M-60401-2025 on 04.11.2025; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Vikram Aggarwal, decided 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. ¶26

Kamaldeep Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrested on 05.01.2025 in FIR No.1010 dated 22.12.2024 (challan under Sections 309(4), 238 and 111 BNS), is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶11

Court's answer

Bail is granted on delay/parity considerations, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Grounds for bail: FIR registered against unknown persons; no test identification parade conducted; petitioner in custody about 1½ years; none of the 9 prosecution witnesses examined since charges framed on 03.06.2026 (final report 27.03.2025); co-accused already granted bail; trial will take sufficiently long, so no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶25

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – Regular bail – S.483 BNSS petition allowed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Vikram Aggarwal, J., oral) on 08.07.2026 in FIR No.1010 dated 22.12.2024, P.S. Shahbad, District Kurukshetra, initially under S.304 BNS, later with S.309(3) BNS added and challan under Ss.309(4), 238 and 111 BNS. FIR registered against unknown persons; no test identification parade conducted; petitioner in custody about 1½ years since arrest on 05.01.2025; final report submitted 27.03.2025 and charges framed only on 03.06.2026; none of 9 prosecution witnesses examined. Parity with co-accused Lakhwinder @ Moni, granted bail by coordinate Bench on 04.11.2025 in CRM-M-60401-2025. Trial expected to take sufficiently long; further custody would serve no useful purpose. Bail granted without expressing any opinion on merits, on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate. State opposed, citing 4 other similar cases against the petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

213 CRM-M-10290-2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026

¶3

Kamaldeep …Petitioner

¶4

V/s

¶5

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶7

Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶9

¶10

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

¶11

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.1010, dated 22.12.2024 registered under Section 304 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) (subsequently Section 309(3) BNS was added and Section 304 BNS was deleted) (challan was presented under Sections 309(4), 238 and 111 BNS) at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra.

¶12

Custody certificate dated 07.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel in Court today is taken on record.

¶13

On a complaint submitted by one Raju Lal, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation was that on 14.12.2024 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant Raju Lal and Madan Lal were intercepted by three unknown persons near Adesh Hospital (District Kurukshetra). Their mobile phones and wallets, which contained Rs.13,000/- and other important documents were snatched. After one hour, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn from the account of the complainant by way of debit card after which the assailants purchased

¶14

VIKAS CHANDER 2026.07.08 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-10290-2026

¶16

-2-

¶17

mobile phones from a shop in Ambala and paid the withdrawn amount to him. The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and no test identification parade was got conducted. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since the time of his arrest and almost 1½ years have elapsed; final report was submitted on 27.03.2025 and charges were only framed on 03.06.2026 and no prosecution witness has been examined as of now. Learned counsel submits that the trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. He also submits that the co-accused Lakhwinder @ Moni @ Lakhwinder Singh @ Moni has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-60401-2025.

¶19

Per contra , learned counsel representing the State has opposed the bail petition. She submits that that 4 other cases of similar nature stand registered against the petitioner.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Concededly, the FIR was registered against unknown persons. No test identification parade was got conducted. The petitioner is in custody for the last 1½ years. None of the prosecution witness out of a total of 9 has been examined as of now since charges were framed on 03.06.2026, final report having been submitted on 27.03.2025. Still further, co-accused Lakhwinder @ Moni has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-60401-2025. He was also alleged to have been

¶22

one of the persons who had committed the crime. Thus, trial will take a VIKAS CHANDER 2026.07.08 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-10290-2026

¶24

-3-

¶25

sufficiently long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶26

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶27

		(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE
July 08, 2	026
vcgarg
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶28

VIKAS CHANDER 2026.07.08 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kamaldeep v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaldeep v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarabjit Kaur Alias Shabo and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Salwant Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Husanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shri Krishan Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Akash Tripathy Vs State of Haryana and Another