Dismissed¶37

Sadab Khan v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2026CRM-M/9860/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail denied; kidnapping and murder of minor child for ransom; FIR No. 48 dated 11.03.2025, PS Faridabad NIT, Faridabad; Sections 103(1), 140(2), 3(5) BNS 2023; Section 483 BNSS 2023 bail petition; final report Section 193 BNSS; scooty and mobile phone lent to main accused; ransom call Rs. 5,00,000/-; disclosure statements of co-accused; circumstantial evidence; custody since 12.03.2025; Article 21 speedy trial; direction to expedite trial; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Virinder Aggarwal J.; decided 14.07.2026; CRM-M-9860-2026.

What did the court decide?

No bail relief; regular bail denied. Consequential direction only: Trial Court to expedite the trial and ensure early examination of material witnesses. ¶37

Sadab Khan Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail relief; regular bail denied. Consequential direction only: Trial Court to expedite the trial and ensure early examination of material witnesses.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to petitioner Sadab Khan during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 48 dated 11.03.2025 (PS Faridabad NIT), involving alleged kidnapping and murder of a minor child for ransom. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Regular bail is refused: considering the nature and gravity of the allegations relating to the kidnapping and murder of a minor child for ransom, the seriousness of the offence alleged, and the material collected by the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail at this stage, as the evidentiary value of the prosecution material cannot be assessed at this stage.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The demand for ransom, the use of the petitioner's scooty in the kidnapping and his mobile phone in making the ransom call indicate towards his involvement in the offence.

¶33

Key takeaways

The right to speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the petitioner, having remained in custody for a considerable period, cannot be detained indefinitely, and the learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and ensure examination of material witnesses at the earliest, in accordance with law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Virinder Aggarwal, J., oral) dismisses CRM-M-9860-2026: regular bail refused to Sadab Khan, accused in FIR No. 48 dated 11.03.2025, PS Faridabad NIT, District Faridabad, under Sections 103(1), 140(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for the kidnapping and murder of a minor child (Vinay) for a ransom demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Petitioner's alleged role is limited to lending his scooty, used in the kidnapping, and his mobile phone, used for the ransom call, to the main accused; involvement surfaced through co-accused disclosure statements and recoveries. In custody since 12.03.2025; investigation complete and final report under Section 193 BNSS presented. Holding that the gravity of the offence and the indicia of involvement outweigh the claim to bail, and that the evidentiary value of the prosecution material cannot be assessed at the bail stage, the Court declines bail. Invoking Article 21, the Court directs the Trial Court to expedite the trial and examine material witnesses at the earliest. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, was cited by defence counsel only.

¶1

CRM-M-9860-2026

¶2

¶3

216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-9860-2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026

SADAB KHAN

...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana

¶13

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 48 dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Faridabad NIT, District Faridabad, under Sections 103(1), 140(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Mahender, who reported that his minor son Vinay had gone missing on 10.03.2025 and did not return home. During the search, information was received regarding the recovery of an unidentified dead body of a child from the Mangar area, which was kept at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. The complainant identified the dead body as that of his son Vinay. It is further alleged that prior to the recovery of the dead body, a ransom call was received on the mobile phone of the complainant's brother, wherein the caller demanded an amount of 5,00,000/- for release of the child and threatened₹

¶16

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-9860-2026 2

¶18

that otherwise the child would be killed. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and nominated as an accused. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was allegedly known to the main accused and had provided assistance by lending his scooty and mobile phone, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence. It is the case of the prosecution that the involvement of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused and the recoveries allegedly effected during investigation. After completion of investigation, the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS has been presented before the learned Trial Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is contended that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor any specific role was attributed to him at the initial stage. The entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner is based upon circumstantial evidence and disclosure statements of the co-accused, which by themselves do not have any substantive evidentiary value unless duly corroborated during trial.

¶20

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is wholly distinct from that of the main accused and is limited only to the alleged lending of a scooty and a mobile phone. It is argued that merely providing a vehicle or a mobile phone to a known person, without any knowledge or intention regarding the alleged offence, does not constitute participation in the commission of a serious crime. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence, eyewitness account, DNA evidence, forensic

¶21

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM-M-9860-2026 3

¶23

material or electronic evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged kidnapping or murder of the deceased child.

¶24

3.2 It is further argued that the alleged recoveries from the petitioner are matters of trial and their evidentiary value can only be assessed during the course of evidence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.03.2025 and has undergone substantial incarceration of almost one year. The investigation already stands concluded, the final report has been presented before the learned Trial Court, and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is contended that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

¶25

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner violates the said mandate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI , (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶26

Notice of motion.

¶27

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana,who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State and opposes the grant of regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and pertain to the kidnapping and murder of a minor child. It is contended that the petitioner has been rightly implicated during the course of investigation and his role has surfaced on the basis of the disclosure statements of the coaccused as well as the recoveries effected from him. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was known to the main accused and had allegedly

¶28

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CRM-M-9860-2026 4

¶30

provided his scooty and mobile phone, which were used in the commission of the crime, thereby facilitating the occurrence.

¶31

5.1 It is further submitted that the case rests upon a chain of circumstantial evidence and the role of each accused is required to be appreciated during the course of trial. Learned State counsel argues that the alleged offence is grave in nature, involving the murder of a minor child, and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. It is contended that there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses or hampering the trial if released on bail.

¶32

5.2 Learned State counsel, however, fairly concedes that the investigation in the matter stands completed, the final report has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, and the petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.03.2025 and the trial is presently pending before the learned Trial Court. Nonetheless, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence, dismissal of the present petition is prayed for.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations relating to the kidnapping and murder of a minor child, for demand of ransom, use of his scooty in kidnapping and his mobile phone in making ransom call indicates towards his involvement. The seriousness of the offence alleged, and the material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The evidentiary value of the material collected by the prosecution

¶34

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CRM-M-9860-2026

¶36

¶37

cannot be assessed at this stage. AConsequently, the present petition is dismissed.

¶38

However, it is well settled that the right to speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having remained in custody for a considerable period, cannot be detained indefinitely. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and ensure examination of material witnesses at the earliest, in accordance with law.

¶39

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶40

14.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶41

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sadab Khan v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadab Khan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Singh and Another Vs State of Punab and Another

Shaminder Singh Vs Ravinder Kumar Thr His Lrs and Anr.

Vipin and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jatin Munga @ Trendi @ Jatin Moga Vs State of Punjab

Kuljeet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sonu Vs State of Haryana