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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be released on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case, subject to conditions of not threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses and deemed cancellation of the order if found indulging in similar activities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, booked in FIR No. 340 dated 07.08.2024, Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram, is entitled to regular bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Considering the facts on record, the Court deemed it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail; the prayer in the petition was allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

Ratio / Principle

As a condition, the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner, directly or indirectly.

Key takeaways

Any discussion recorded in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case; the trial Court is expected to take an independent view on the basis of the evidence and decide expeditiously, in accordance with law.obiter¶28
If in future the petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, the bail order shall stand deemed cancelled.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) — Petitioner booked in FIR No. 340 dated 07.08.2024, PS Palam Vihar, Gurugram, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 319(4), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS — allegations of identifying a fake person projected as real owner (Indira Khanna) of a property — petitioner in custody since 08.01.2026 — co-accused Amit already granted regular bail (order dated 22.08.2025 in CRM-M-44649-2025) — trial pending, stage of trial confirmed by State — Court, considering the aforementioned facts, extended the concession of regular bail — release on bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Magistrates concerned, if not required in any other case — petitioner not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses — order deemed cancelled if petitioner found indulging in similar activities — observations not to be treated as expression of opinion on facts.

CRM-M-30936-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206

CRM-M-30936-2026 Decided on : 03.06.2026

Pankaj Kumar

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

. . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. Chirag Dahiya, Advocate and Mr. Akhil Maan, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG Haryana

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023

(earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police	District
Petitioner(s)				Station
Pankaj Kumar, aged 28 years	340	07.08.2024	419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B IPC (319(4), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS)	Palam Vihar	Gurugram, Haryana

As per allegations, petitioner-Pankaj Kumar and his co-acccused Amit had identified the owner of the property, who actually was a fake person and projecting herself to be real owner - Indira Khanna.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case and he is in custody since 08.01.2026. Further submits that co-accused Amit has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-44649-2025 (Annexure P-7). Thus,

prays for grant of bail.

REENA 2026.06.04 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-30936-2026

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, confirms the facts including the role attributed to the petitioner and also the stage of trial. Thus, prays for dismissal of the petition.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on file.

Considering the aforementioned facts, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 10. Petition stands disposed of .

(SANJAY VASHISTH) June 03, 2026 JUDGE

reena

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

REENA 2026.06.04 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh