CRM-M No. 13954 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.
Judgment
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Manglesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.0405 dated 26.11.2025 registered under Section 13(1) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan Avam Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, at Police Station Jind Sadar, District Jind, Haryana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, even from the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR (Annexure P- 1), no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that even from the FIR, it is evident that a report with regard to the skins could not be prepared at the spot and the samples were sent to the Board of Veterinary Surgeon’s for expert opinion. However, even the Board of Veterinary Surgeons opined that the skin recovered from the vehicle belonged to the cattle/ cow animals and there is no conclusive expert opinion to prove the charge against CRM-M-13954-2026 -2- the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even the petitioner was merely working as a driver on daily wages and had no ownership, control or proprietary interest either in the recovered skins or vehicle, which was used for the commission of crime. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on
26.11.2025 and is in custody since then.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 07 months and the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far. Still further, the case is listed for prosecution for the first time on 03.09.2026 and the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.
02.07.2026 hemlata (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan Avam Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 — s. 13(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Jul 2026. The bench was N S SHEKHAWAT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.