Allowed¶27

Komal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2026CRM-M/13442/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Komal v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-13442-2026 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Vikram Aggarwal J., decision 06.07.2026 — regular bail granted under Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.262 dated 17.12.2024, PS Dhouj, Faridabad; BNS Sections 140(3), 3(5), 103, 238, 61(2); circumstantial evidence; custody exceeding one and a half years since 27.12.2024; charges framed 08.07.2025; none of 35 witnesses examined; trial delay as ground for bail; bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶27

Komal Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose case rests on circumstantial evidence and who has been in custody for more than one and a half years since arrest on 27.12.2024, should be released on regular bail given that charges were framed on 08.07.2025 but not even one of the 35 listed witnesses has been examined, so that the trial will take a sufficiently long time.

¶22

Court's answer

Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the petitioner has been in custody for more than one and a half years, charges were framed as far back as 08.07.2025 and not even a single witness out of 35 has been examined, the trial will take a sufficiently long time and, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present 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; pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail sought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No.262 dated 17.12.2024, Police Station Dhouj, Faridabad, registered under Sections 140(3) and 3(5) of BNS with offences under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) of BNS added subsequently, concerning the abduction and killing of Tayyab. Case based on circumstantial evidence; petitioner in custody for over one and a half years since arrest on 27.12.2024; charges framed vide order dated 08.07.2025 but not even one of 35 listed witnesses examined; trial expected to take sufficiently long. Petition allowed without expressing any opinion on merits; petitioner ordered released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

216

¶3

CRM-M-13442-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026

KOMAL

....Petitioner

V/s

STATE OF HARYANA .…Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶9

Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.262 dated 17.12.2024 registered under Sections 140(3) and 3(5) of BNS (offence under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) of BNS added subsequently) at Police Station Dhouj, Faridabad.

¶14

On a complaint moved by one Ashsish, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation was that on 16.12.2024, his brother Tayyab had been abducted after injuries having been caused to him. It was alleged that the wife of Tayyab namely Anisha was having illicit relations with coaccused Ravi, as a result of which, Tayyab was eliminated. The dead body of Tayyab was recovered on 21.12.2024, where after co-accused Akash was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2024 and is in custody since then.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

¶16

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-13442-2026 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

has been falsely implicated. She submits that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and whereas, the alleged incident is of 16.12.2024, the dead body was recovered on 21.12.2024. She further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half years; final report stands submitted; charges stand framed vide order dated 08.07.2025 but out of a total of 35 witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined. She submits that under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶20

Per contra , learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that in the CCTV footage, the petitioner was also seen taking Tayyab on a motorcycle along with other accused. Learned State counsel has however, not been able to deny that after charges having been framed on 08.07.2025, no prosecution witness out of a total of 35 witnesses has been examined till date.

¶21

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

¶22

The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half years. After investigation having been completed and final report having submitted, charges were framed as far back on 08.07.2025. Out of a list of 35 witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date. It is therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶23

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is

¶24

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-13442-2026 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

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.

¶28

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶29

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶30

July 06, 2026 Mani Kumar

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶32

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.06 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Komal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simranjeet Singh Alias Simranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Navpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh Alias Lovepreet Alias Laksman Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satinderjit Singh Alias Mintu Vs State of Punjab and Others