Allowed¶42

Awal Khan Alias Sahil v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2026CRM-M/44667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Awal Khan @ Sahil v. State — bail petition under Section 483 BNSS allowed; co-accused in FIR No.04 dated 02.01.2022 (Sections 302/201/34/392/120B IPC, PS Sector-10, Gurugram); custody since 14.04.2022; 12 of 35 witnesses examined; co-accused Kunal Dhama already bailed; Article 21 speedy trial and 'bail is a general rule' principle; Dataram (2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586) relied on.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioner Awal Khan @ Sahil subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and compliance with the conditions imposed. ¶42

Awal Khan Alias Sahil Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, co-accused in FIR No.04 dated 02.01.2022 under Sections 302/201/34/392/120B IPC at Police Station Sector-10, Gurugram, should be granted bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶15

Court's answer

No useful purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner: he has been in custody since 14.04.2022, only 12 of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and co-accused Kunal Dhama, allegedly present in the car with the petitioner, has already been released on bail; the Court decided this without adverting to the merits of the case.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would violate the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to speedy trial, and is contrary to the principle that bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception (as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram and applied in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi).

¶40

Key takeaways

Bail was conceded to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, and he is to abide by the conditions imposed (text of the conditions is unreadable in the damaged copy).ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 483 BNSS granted to Awal Khan @ Sahil, co-accused in FIR No.04 dated 02.01.2022 under Sections 302/201/34/392/120B IPC, Police Station Sector-10, Gurugram (murder of Anjani Kumar Kharwar; Rs.1500/- and his mobile phone allegedly snatched). Court, without adverting to merits, noted petitioner in custody since 14.04.2022, only 12 of 35 prosecution witnesses examined, and co-accused Kunal Dhama already released on bail; held further detention would violate Article 21 (right to speedy trial) and the principle that bail is the general rule and incarceration the exception, relying on Dataram (2018) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (2012). Bail granted subject to bail/surety bonds and conditions.

��

��

�� 

��

�� !"#"�$%��&��&��

��

��

��

��

��% ��'�(��)&��)��)�*��

�+�#�$�% �� !��

��"��

��)�*��,��&�-��(.

¶15

�� Petitioner, co-accused in case FIR No.04 dated 02.01.2022 registered against him, under Sections 302/201/34/392/120B IPC, at Police Station Sector-10, Gurugram, has filed the present petition for grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶16

$� Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed

¶17

hereinbelow:-

¶18

“Pawan Kumar Kharwar S/o late Sh. Jeet Ram, R/o village Singera, Police Station Marda, District Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, presently residing in tenanted house No.164, Street No.5, Telephone Exchange, Samalkha, New Delhi set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint pointing therein that his elder brother Anjani Kumar Kharwar, aged 40 years, used to earn his livelihood by selling eggs on a cart, near a liquor shop, Sector-62, Gurugram. After work, Anjani Kumar used to return home on daily basis. On 21.12.2021, Anjani Kumar did not come back. Family searched for him but were unsuccessful. After receiving an

¶19

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶20

��

¶21

��$

¶22

information that an unidentified body is lying in mortuary at Gurugram, they reached there, where they identified the dead body as that of Anjani Kumar. Police authorities were requested to find out as to how Anjani Kumar passed away, who all were responsible and to initiate appropriate legal proceedings. Postmortem examination of the dead body was got conducted. The Board of Doctors opined that “deceased died on account of head injury inflicted with blunt force” Complainant was contacted again. Son of the deceased responded to the police authorities and got his statement recorded to the effect that his late father was having a mobile phone in which two SIM cards had been inserted. At about 01:46 am on 22.12.2021, he had received a call from his father’s number. The caller demanded to know the password, when he refused he was made to have word with his father that his life is in danger and thereafter, the phone was switched off. Son of deceased asserted that his father had been murdered by unknown persons. On the basis of the complaint and post-mortem report, a formal case vide FIR No.04 dated 02.01.2022, u/s 302/201/34/392/120B IPC, was registered at Police Station Sector-10, Gurugram.

¶23

During the course of investigation, son of the deceased produced a bill of the mobile phone being used by his late father. On the basis of IMEI number, a SIM was found functional in the said phone which was issued in the name of Isaq Khan, who when contacted disclosed that the phone set had been handed over to him by his nephew Majruddin, who in turn disclosed that the phone had been given to him by one Madhav, who explained that he had got the phone through Dipanshu. It was in the disclosure statement of Dipanshu that the name of the accused Aftab @ Raja cropped up. They were joined in the investigation. After collecting sufficient incriminating material against Aftab, he was arrested. Based on his disclosure statement Section 392 IPC was added. On 14.07.2022, co-accused Kunal Dhama and the present petitioner Awal Khan @ Sahil were arrested and interrogated. They confessed to their involvement in the crime. At the instance of

¶24

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶25

��

¶26

��%

¶27

present petitioner iron spanner used in the commission of offence

¶28

was recovered. Mobile phone (make Realme) was recovered at the instance of co-accused Aftab which had been looted from the deceased. It further came to the notice of the police authorities that present petitioner and Aftab @ Raja had stolen a vehicle in connection of which they were already facing a criminal case. On the intervening night 21/22.12.2022. Petitioner and other accused had given lift to the deceased in the stolen Honda City car. Rs.1500/- and mobile phone of deceased as also snatched, who was thereafter assaulted. Petitioner and his other accomplices, who were present in the car demanded to know the password as they were wanted to operate PhonePe App but were unsuccessful.

¶29

%� ��!��&��'� ��&��!!�� '��&��(��)��"��'� ��%�%�$$+�� '��&��

¶30

,� (��!��!�� &��'��!��!��-��!!�� !��!�'�� !��!��!��!�''�� !��.��!��!�� !!��!��'��/�� 0�� '�� !��!!��&�� '�� !��/�� 1�*�� !��!��&��!��2�� (��&0�!��!��3�'��&�� !��!��!��&��!��'�

¶31

4��&'��!��!��!!�� /��'��!��!�� !!��!��&��!��!��&��&��.��

¶32

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶33

��

¶34

��,

¶35

��$$�5�$$+��.��$%%%6�$*$+�7��3��89��'�� '��&��'��

¶36

(��!��3��!�� ,�,�$$$��&��!��!��:��%+��!�� $�� &��3�'��;��!�'�� 2��'��1��!��&'�� !��&� ��!��!��!��!�� &�� <��'��!��$��.��4�� '��&'��&��'�� +� �� ��2��&�� !��!��!!�'��!�� '��!��&��!��!��'��;�� !!�� -�� &��!�� &�� 7��!��!��&��&��!��9� =��!��'�� 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the documents on record. 7. In view of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but without adverting to merits of the case, taking note of the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 14.04.2022 and out of 35 prosecution witnesses only 12 have been examined till date. Further the fact that coaccused Kunal Dhama, who allegedly was present in the car along with petitioner has been released on bail, the Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner, as the same,

¶37

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶38

��

¶39

��+

¶40

without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial and would, thus, also be against the principle of “Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶41

In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586 , Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court in granting bail to the second respondent/accused on the ground that he had been in custody for a long period and the possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future was remote.

¶42

�� concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶43

��

¶44

�� !�� "��

¶45

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.23 10:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶46

��

¶47

��6

¶48

��#��$��