Subhash Alias Bhasa Vs State of Haryana

This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.294 dated 01.05.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 190 and 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Hansi City, District Hansi.

¶18

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-11694-2026 (O&M)

¶20

2

¶21

In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being on the basis of a complaint submitted by Jaideep. In the abovementioned complaint addressed to SHO, Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar, it was stated by the complainant that on 01.05.2025, he along with his friend ‘Subhkaran’ and ‘Vicky’ was going to Hansi on motorcycle, and that on the way, near Village Sainipura, two motorcycles overtook them and one of the occupants of the abovementioned motorcycle, fired three gunshots upon him. According to complainant, in the abovementioned firing incident, he had suffered injuries on his right arm, and that after the incident, the shooters managed to flee from the spot. It was further stated by the complainant that he was having a suspicion that

¶22

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. During the course of investigation petitioner was arrested in the present case.

¶23

Notice of motion .

¶24

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-11694-2026 (O&M)

¶28

3

¶29

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the role attributed to the petitioner is that the gun-shots were fired upon the complainant at the instance of the petitioner due to prior enmity between both of them, as an altercation had taken place about one and half month ago. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per prosecution case itself, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence and that with regard to role attributed to the petitioner the only evidence collected by the Investigating Agency is the mere suspicion of complainant against the petitioner, that abovementioned firing incident was at the instance of present petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, no recovery of any incriminating material has taken place.

¶30

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel the petitioner is a habitual offender who is already facing prosecution in more than four cases. According to learned State Counsel he has committed the organised crimes under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 which is a serious offence and therefore, the petitioner cannot be accorded the benefit of bail. As per learned State Counsel, the petitioner has a criminal history and that he has been involved in four other cases. According to learned State Counsel since the role attributed to the petitioner is that of conspirator, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

¶31

The record has been perused carefully.

¶32

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

¶33

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-11694-2026 (O&M)

¶35

4

¶36

i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one year two months and nine days;

¶37

ii. that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner

¶38

iii. that investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶39

iv. that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far;

¶40

v. that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital;

¶41

vi. that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶42

vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶43

viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

¶44

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.

¶45

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-11694-2026 (O&M)

¶47

5

¶48

Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

¶49

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.

¶50

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

CRM-M-11694-2026 (O&M)

¶52

6

¶53

On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

¶54

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

¶55

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶56

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶57

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRM-M-11694-2026 (O&M)

¶59

7

¶60

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:-

¶61

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

¶62

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

¶63

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶64

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

¶65

14.07.2026

¶66

Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶67

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.15 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Subhash Alias Bhasa v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Alias Bhasa 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

Shiv Kumar @ Kaku Vs State of Haryana

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Saurav Alias Vikas Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gagandeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana

Nand Kishore Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh