Mukul vs State Of Haryana

Surya Partap Singh, J

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.258 dated 07.11.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 296, 109, 110, 61(2) and 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Satya Parkash', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated stated by the above named complainant that on 06.11.2025 at about 6.00 P.M. he was working in his flour mill when he heard a commotion and came out of his shop, where he came to know that 'Bhanu', his nephew in relation, was under brutal attack by some assailants. As per complainant he rushed to the spot, where he found that 'Sunil' along with 'Mukul' (petitioner herin) , 'Nikhil' and 6-7 other persons, was thrashing 'Bhanu' and that the abovesaid assailants were armed with sticks, axe and knife. The complainant further alleged that he intervened and tried to rescue his nephew 'Bhanu' and in that endeavour he suffered injury on his hand. The complainant further stated that although they were saved due to intervention of their neighbours, but the assailants while leaving the spot threatened them of dire consequences.

It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

Notice of motion.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, the service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

Heard.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegations against the petitioner is that he was involved in the conspiracy for the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioner neither the petitioner was present on the spot at the time of occurrence, nor anything incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel approximately 125 blows were inflicted on the legs of injured 'Bhanu' by the petitioner and his co-accused, and that the injured is still undergoing treatment. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that in the present case the statement of complainant is yet to be recorded, and that the period of incarceration is large enough to draw an inference that there is delay in trial. Thus, learned State counsel has requested that in view of gravity of offence the benefit of bail should be refused to the petitioner.

The record has been perused carefully.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: -

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than six months and sixteen days;

ii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iii) that no active role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of crime;

iv) that there is no convincing evidence to show that petitioner was involved in any conspiracy with regard to commission of offence;

v) that the orders passed by the learned trial Court show that despite service the complainant and another injured have not appeared before the learned trial Court, for their examination;

vi) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future

vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another' (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.