Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CRM-M/50263/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 BNSS. The court held that further detention as an undertrial was not warranted, relying on precedents for bail in serious cases where trials are lengthy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to standard conditions and specific orders regarding contact, passport deposit, and non-interference with trial.

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

¶1

CRM-M-50263-2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

209

¶4

CRM-M-50263-2026

¶5

Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Date of uploading : 11.09.2026

¶6

Amit Kumar ………….Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana And Anr …….Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Kartik Khicher, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.88 dated 20.06.2025 under Sections 61(2), 318(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Karnal, District Karnal.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already stands presented. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man aged

¶15

about 36 years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the

¶16

JATIN 2026.09.11 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-50263-2026 -2-

¶18

sole bread-earner of his family. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶19

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 10.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

¶20

I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶21

The petitioner was arrested on 05.05.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 01.07.2026. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

¶22

As per custody certificate dated 10.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 months and 06 days & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made

¶23

JATIN 2026.09.11 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-50263-2026 -3-

¶25

out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

¶26

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

In view of above, the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

¶31

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

¶32

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

¶33

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

¶34