Allowed¶29

Nisar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2026CRM-M/47864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted by Punjab & Haryana High Court (Justice Subhas Mehla), decision dated 04.02.2026. Keywords: regular bail; custody more than 10 months & 24 days; nothing recovered from petitioner; no risk of tampering with evidence; trial to take sufficient time; bail is rule, jail is an exception; bail cannot be denied as measure of punishment; release on requisite bonds before trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate; no opinion expressed 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, without expression of any opinion on the merits. ¶29

Nisar Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who had been in custody for over 10 months and 24 days with nothing recovered from him, should be ordered released on regular bail.

¶29

Court's answer

Bail could not be denied merely as a measure of punishment: nothing had been recovered from the petitioner, he had been in custody for more than 10 months and 24 days, and there was no material indicating that after release he would tamper with the evidence.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule and jail is an exception, and noting that culpability is to be decided by the trial Court on appreciation of evidence, the Court deemed the case fit for grant of bail.

¶27

Key takeaways

The petition was allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.ratio¶29
Caveat that nothing observed in the judgment shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (SUBHAS MEHLA, J., oral judgment decided 04.02.2026): petition for regular bail allowed. Grounds: nothing recovered from the petitioner; custody already exceeding 10 months and 24 days; no material to suggest that release would lead to tampering with evidence; trial expected to take sufficient time; concession of bail cannot be denied merely as a measure of punishment since culpability falls to be decided by the trial Court. Applying the principle that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the main case.

¶1

�� -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

��

¶4

�� Decided on: 04.02.2026

��

…...Petitioner

Versus

��

…...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶11

Present: ��

¶12

¶13

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

¶14

�� !��"��#��#��$ "��%��&'&��#�� ()*�"��'+�'��&'&+�� &'$�%$��%$�%��&,��&-��"�.��-�+��.�� .��"��/�0��"��

¶15

&�� 0��'+�'��&'&+��1��0��!��2�0��3� ��!�� �� ��&�'� #��4��!��1��0�� 0��0��

¶16

�� 5�� 0�� 0��1��0��!��2�0��3� �� 0��

¶17

SONIA PURI 2026.02.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

�� -2-

¶19

��!��0��6�� 7+�!��8�� !��0��!��)��9�� 0��0��#��#��:�*� ��0��0��0�� 1��0��!��2�0��3� �� !��0��'�0��

¶20

�� "��0��

¶21

+�� �0��:��;��<��!�� �� :��1��!� ��!��!��'��'&�&'&7�� 0�� ()��4��!��!��1�� !��00��4��!��<�� !��0��'�0�� &��!��

¶22

7�� <��

¶23

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶24

the fact that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; present petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months & 24 days; also there is no material which shows that after release of the petitioner, the petitioner will tamper with the evidence; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just

¶25

SONIA PURI 2026.02.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

�� -3-

¶27

as a measure of punishment as culpability is to be decided by trial Court after appreciating evidence adduced by 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��

¶28

��

¶29

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed . 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.

¶30

Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an opinion on

¶31

the merits of the main case.

¶32

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 04.02.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO

¶33

SONIA PURI 2026.02.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nisar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar 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

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Gupta Vs Rattan Gupta

Bhagat Singh Vs State of Haryana

Robanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Satwant Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab

Surender Kumar @ Bhura Vs State of Haryana

Ravi Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana