Allowed¶37

Puneet v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2026CRM-M/6817/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted; Section 309(4) BNS 2023; FIR No.292 dated 13.06.2025; PS Badshahpur, District Gururgram, Haryana; co-accused Priya; robbery of taxi driver; Rs.95,000/- transferred via objectionable video; custody since 24.06.2025 (over 10 months); clean antecedents; complainant already examined; no apprehension of evidence tampering; trial to take considerable time; bail is a rule, jail an exception; bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM; CRM-M-6817-2026 (O&M); decided 13.05.2026; Justice Subhas Mehla; Punjab and Haryana High Court.

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. ¶37

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

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.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 24.06.2025 in FIR No.292 dated 13.06.2025 under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023, is entitled to the concession of regular bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment; it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and this was deemed a fit case for regular bail.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had been behind bars since 24.06.2025, i.e. for more than 10 months, which weighed in favour of grant of bail.

¶31

Key takeaways

The petitioner has clean and clear antecedents and is not involved in any other case except the present one.ratio¶32
The complainant has already been examined and there is no apprehension that the petitioner, if released on bail, will tamper with the prosecution evidence.ratio¶33
The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any further period.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Subhas Mehla, J.) allowed a regular-bail petition under CRM-M jurisdiction in FIR No.292 dated 13.06.2025, Police Station Badshahpur, District Gururgram, registered under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023, wherein the petitioner alongwith co-accused Priya was alleged to have robbed a taxi driver and got Rs.95,000/- transferred by recording an objectionable video and threatening false implication. Granting bail, the Court relied on: (i) custody since 24.06.2025 exceeding 10 months; (ii) clean and clear antecedents with no involvement in any other case; (iii) the complainant already having been examined with no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence; and (iv) the trial likely to take considerable time, with no fruitful purpose served by further custody. Reiterating that bail is a rule and jail an exception and that concession of bail cannot be denied as a measure of punishment, the petition was allowed without expressing any opinion on merits, subject to furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

228

¶3

CRM-M-6817-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 13.05.2026

Puneet … Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶9

Present:Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *****

¶11

SUBHAS MEHLA, J . (Oral)

¶12

By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.292 dated 13.06.2025 registered under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gururgram, Haryana.

¶13

Briefly stated, petitioner has been alleged to have committed an offence under Section 309(4) alongwith co-accused, namely, Priya who robbed the complainant, a taxi driver and got transferred an amount of Rs.95,000/- by making his objectionable video after threatening him and putting him under fear of falsely implicating him in a harassment case.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for concession of bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:

¶15

I. That the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months.

¶16

II. That the offences are triable by Magistrate.

¶17

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-6817-2026 (O&M)

¶19

( 2 )

¶20

III. Complainant has already been examined and there is no apprehension that if the petitioner released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶21

IV. Petitioner is having clean and clear antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal activity, except the present one.

¶22

V. The trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

¶23

Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel today in Court, is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is behind bars since 24.06.2025 i.e. for the last 10 months and 19 days.

¶24

Learned State Counsel opposed the present petition on the following grounds:

¶25

I. The petitioner, along with co-accused is involved in a heinous crime, wherein they allegedly robbed a taxi driver and got a sum of Rs.95,000/- transferred from the complainant, besides taking away his mobile phone. It is further alleged that they also recorded an objectionable video with co-accused Priya and attempted to collect additional material benefits.

¶26

II. The allegations are supported by Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location data, which place the petitioner at the relevant place of occurrence.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds merits in the present petition on the following grounds:

¶29

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-6817-2026 (O&M) ( 3 )

¶31

I. The petitioner has been behind bars since 24.06.2025 i.e. for the last more than 10 months.

¶32

II. Petitioner has clean and clear antecedents and he is not involved in any other case except the present one.

¶33

III. Complainant has already been examined and there is no apprehension that if the petitioner released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶34

IV. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

¶35

V. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period.

¶36

As concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is a rule, jail is an exception. Hence, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶37

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.

¶38

13.05.2026

¶39

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) JUDGE

¶40

Geeta

¶41

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶42

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Puneet v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet 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

Ranjit Singh @ Manga Vs State of Punjab

Yash Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Jashanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raju Vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Vs Rajbala

Manjeet @ Monty Vs State of Haryana