Allowed¶27

Sandeep and Another v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2026CRM-M/32619/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; CRM-M-32619-2026 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; decided 03.07.2026; FIR No.343/2025 PS Thanesar City, Kurukshetra; BNS Ss. 191(3), 190, 115, 110, 126, 351(3), 61, 117(2); accused not named in FIR; implication via disclosure statement of co-accused Sachin Gujjar; stick assault causing arm fractures; custody about 8 months; final report filed; charges framed; no prosecution witness examined; trial to take sufficiently long; no recovery pending; bail granted without opinion on merits; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners 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 applications, if any, disposed of. ¶27

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who were not named in the FIR and were nominated only on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, in custody since November 2025 with the final report filed, charges framed and no prosecution witness yet examined, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶14

Court's answer

Since the petitioners were concededly not named in the FIR and were nominated only on the disclosure statement of co-accused Sachin Gujjar; Sandeep is in custody since 14.11.2025 and Dharampal since 03.11.2025; the final report has been submitted, no recovery remains to be made, charges stand framed but no witness has been examined and the trial will take a sufficiently long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶27

Key takeaways

Whether the petitioners were involved in the offence shall be determined once the trial concludes; the Court expresses no opinion on the merits while granting bail.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Vikram Aggarwal, J., oral) allowed a regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS in CRM-M-32619-2026 (O&M), decided 03.07.2026, concerning FIR No.343 dated 27.10.2025, Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra, registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 115, 110, 126, 351(3) BNS with Sections 61 and 117(2) BNS added subsequently. Petitioners Sandeep and Dharampal, not named in the FIR lodged on the statement of one Vikas Kumar, were nominated solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Sachin Gujjar after an attack in which the complainant suffered arm fractures from a stick assault by 5/6 unknown persons. In custody since 14.11.2025 and 03.11.2025 respectively, with the final report filed, charges framed, no recovery pending, no prosecution witness examined and the trial expected to take a sufficiently long time, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continued custody and released them on bail/surety bonds, expressly without expressing any opinion on merits; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

212 CRM-M-32619-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.07.2026

¶3

SANDEEP AND ANOTHER

....Petitioners

V/s

STATE OF HARYANA

.…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

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.343 dated 27.10.2025 registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 115, 110, 126, 351(3) of BNS (offence under Sections 61, 117 (2) of BNS added subsequently) at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1).

¶15

On the statement of one Vikas Kumar, the FIR in question was registered. As per the allegations, on 25.10.2025, the complainant was attacked by 5/6 unknown persons with sticks, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries in the form of fractures on his arms. The complainant named Sachin Gujjar and Abhishek Kumar. The petitioners were nominated as accused on the basis of a disclosure statement of coaccused Sachin Gujjar and were arrested. Petitioner Sandeep was arrested on 14.11.2025, whereas petitioner Dharampal 03.11.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been

¶17

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-32619-2026 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

falsely implicated. He submits that none of the petitioners were named in the FIR and were nominated later on the basis of disclosure statement of the coaccused. He further submits that they are in custody for the last almost 8 months; final report stands submitted; charges stand framed but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. He submits that under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be s erved by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶21

Per contra , learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application stating that the allegations are very serious and grievous injuries were inflicted upon the person of the complainant by the accused. It has been submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, they may try to influence and threaten the witnesses and may also abscond.

¶22

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

¶23

Concededly, the petitioners were not named in the FIR, though they were nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by coaccused Sachin Gujjar. The complainant suffered grievous injuries on his arms as there were fractures on the same on account of he having been beaten up by sticks. As to whether the petitioners were involved or not, shall be determined once the trial concludes. The petitioner Sandeep is in custody since 14.11.2025 and Dharampal since 03.11.2025, final report has been submitted; no recovery has to be made; charges have been framed but no witness has been examined till date, trial will take a sufficiently long time. In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer.

¶24

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-32619-2026 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their 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 July 03, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶30

MANI KUMAR 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep and Another v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep and Another 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

Surinder Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Abhijeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Deva Alias Golu Vs State of Punjab

Simranjeet Singh Alias Simranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Navpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab