Allowed¶27

Kuldeep Alias Mahri v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2026CRM-M/3195/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-3195-2026, decided 16.04.2026 by Subhas Mehla, J.: regular bail granted to Kuldeep alias Mahri in FIR No.201/2018 (Ss.148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 379-B, 120-B IPC, PS Khol Rewari) under S.483 BNSS 2023; grounds: custody over 10 months, investigation complete, challan filed, charges not framed, offences triable by JM Ist Class, simple injuries; bail is rule, jail exception; no comment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. ¶27

Kuldeep Alias Mahri Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, nominated in FIR No.201/2018 (Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 379-B and 120-B IPC, PS Khol Rewari) allegedly on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement and in custody for over 10 months, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.

¶13

Court's answer

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

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment, as culpability of the accused is to be decided after appreciating evidence adduced by both parties, and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule and jail is an exception.

¶26

Key takeaways

Bail granted having regard to the facts that the offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the petitioner has been in custody for more than 10 months, investigation is complete, challan has been presented, charges are yet to be framed, and the trial will take sufficient time to conclude; the Court made no comment on the merits.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — FIR No.201 dated 21.07.2018, Police Station Khol Rewari, Haryana, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 379-B and 120-B IPC — Petitioner (not named in FIR, per counsel) nominated on a co-accused's disclosure statement; State alleged involvement in 09 other cases but admitted all injuries were simple and caused with blunt weapon — Petitioner in custody over 10 months; investigation complete; challan presented; charges not framed; offences triable by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class; trial to take time — Concession of bail cannot be denied as a measure of punishment; bail is rule, jail an exception — Petition allowed; regular bail granted on furnishing requisite bonds, without comment on merits.

¶1

215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-3195-2026 Date of decision: 16.04.2026

¶3

KULDEEP ALIAS MAHRI

...PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶9

Present: Mr. Sandeep Kr. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.201 dated 21.07.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 379-B and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Khol Rewari, Haryana.

¶14

Briefly stated, complainant Dharmender moved a complaint to the effect that on 21.07.2018 at about 3:00 AM, 15-20 unknown persons armed with hockey wickets, swords and knife entered into his house, caused injuries to the complainant, his father and wife. The accused persons took away mobile phone of the complainant, and snatched gold chain and some money from his wife. The complainant also stated that they had some land dispute with one Rajender and his brother Uday Pal, due to which, the incident took place. Hence, the FIR was registered. The petitioner has been nominated

¶15

in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused.

¶16

MANISHA 2026.04.21 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-3195-2026

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been involved solely on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence; except the disclosure statement, there is nothing on record to prove the complicity of the petitioner; nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner; all the injuries in the present case are simple in nature and have been caused with a blunt weapon; petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months; investigation has already been completed; challan has been filed; charges are yet to be framed; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. As such, learned counsel prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned State counsel placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and on instructions from ASI Vibhuranjan, submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in 09 other criminal cases and if the petitioner is released on bail, he will certainly indulge into illegal activities. However, learned State counsel fairly admitted that all the injuries in the present case are simple in nature and caused with blunt weapon.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on merit of the case as offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class; petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months;

¶23

MANISHA 2026.04.21 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-3195-2026

¶25

¶26

investigation has already been completed; challan has been presented; charges are yet to be framed; the trial of the case will take sufficient time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability of accused is to be decided after appreciating evidence adduced by both the parties and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶28

April 16, 2026 manisha

¶29

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

¶30

(i) (ii)	Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable	Yes/No Yes/No

¶31

MANISHA 2026.04.21 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldeep Alias Mahri v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Alias Mahri 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

Mukesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harpreet Singh @ Totti and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raju and Another Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.

Harjit Singh Vs Mohan Ram

Sonu Alias Abrar Vs State of Haryana