[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 December, 2025
CRA-S No.3482 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
*****
CRA-S No.3482 of 2025
Date of decision : 10.12.2025
Date of uploading : 10.12.2025
Balwan .............Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, for the appellant
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana
Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, for respondent no.2
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2025
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the
application for grant of regular bail to the appellant in FIR No.321 dated
15.12.2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 342 and 506 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(V) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Later on Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC
deleted and Section 34 of IPC added and challan presented for the
offences under Sections 323, 302, 342, 365, 506 and 34 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan,
Tehsil and District Fatehabad, has been dismissed.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
appeal by the appellant) is as follows:-
1 of 6
'I, Ganga Ram S/o Dei Chand S/o Nikku Ram Sodh, resident of village
Thuiyan, age 55 years, mobile no.9728045072, stated that I am resident of
the aforesaid address and I do labour work and belong to the Scheduled
Caste community. I have three sons the eldest is Guldeep, the second is
Kaluram, aged about 28 years, and the youngest is Dholuram. All my
three sons are unmarried and live with me. My son Kaluram was taking
medicine for a mental disorder from Government Hospital, Hisar. On 09-
12-2023, ру son Kaluram was standing outside our house when, at about
8:00 PM, Om Parkash s/o Khajan Singh Malhaan, resident of Thuiyan,
came there in a drunken condition and started abusing my son Kaluram
with filthy language. My son Kaluram stopped Om Parkash from abusing,
upon which Om Parkash went towards his house. After some time, Om
Parkash s/o Khajan Singh Malhan, Yogesh and Rahul sons of Om
Parkash, Krishan s/o Sher Singh Malhan, and Davinder alias Joga s/o
Basau Malhan, all residents of Thuyiann, came holding sticks and lathis in
their hands. At that time, I was also present at my house. As soon as they
arrived, they suddenly attacked my son Kaluram. Om Parkash hit my son
Kaluram on the waist with the lathi in his hand. Krishan struck my son
Kaluram's right arm with the stick in his hand. Yogesh hit Kaluram's left
arm with the lathi in his hand. Davinder hit him with the stick on his legs.
Rahul hit Kaluram on his right shoulder with a stick. My son Kaluram fell
on the ground. All of them gave many blows on the hands, legs, waist, and
shoulders of Kaluram. Thereafter, Om Parkash, Krishan, Yogesh, Rahul
and Davinder dragged my son Kaluram to the house of Balwan s/o Leela
Ram, resident of Thuyian, where Balwan s/o Leela Ram, holding a stick,
Savitri wife of Balwan, and Ajay s/o Balwan (both holding sticks) were
present. Om Parkash, Krishan, Yogesh, Rahul, Davinder, Balwan, Savity
and Ajay together tied the hands and legs of my son Kaluram and, after
tying, took him inside the room, where all of them together beat my son
Kaluram with sticks and lathis. My son Kaluram raised cries of "save me,
save me." On hearing the cries, I, my brother Tulsiram, and many
villagers came running. Seeing us coming, Om Parkash, Krishan, Yogesh,
Rahul, Davinder, Balwan, Savitri and Ajay all ran away from the spot
along with their sticks and lathis, while threatening that "today Kaluram
has survived; if we get another chance, we will kill him." The reason for
the enmity is that, when my son Kaluram stopped Om Parkash from
abusing him, Om Parkash, Krishan, Yogesh, Rahul, Davinder, Balwan,
Savitri and Ajay beat him without any reason. I and the members of my
family took my injured son Kaluram home that day. On the next day, as the
pain of the injuries increased, I arranged for a conveyance and took my
son Kaluram to the Government Hospital, Bhattu Kalan for treatment,
where the doctor dressed his wounds and referred him to MAMC Agroha
for higher treatment. I then took my son Kaluram to MAMC Agroha for
treatment, where he was under treatment, and during treatment, on the
night of 14-12-2023, he died. Om Parkash, Krishan, Yogesh, Davinder,
Rahul, Balwan. Savitri and Ajay inflicted injuries on my son Kaluram
without any cause. Strict legal action should be taken against them.
Statement written, read over, understood and found correct. Sd/- LTI
(Ganga Ram) Attested Nisha, Police Station Bhattu Kalan.'
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant
is in custody since 16.12.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted
2 of 6
that no specific role has been attributed to the appellant and omnibus role
has been ascribed to him. Learned counsel has further argued that the
appellant has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has further submitted that there is a long impending list of
prosecution witnesses but all the material prosecution witnesses stand
examined. Learned counsel has further submitted that even in the
testimony of the eye-witness/complainant, no specific injury has been
attributed to the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
appellant is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail has been
prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit
of Kulwant Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ, Crime &
Traffic), Fatehabad, District Fatehabad in Court today. The same be kept
on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the
appellant
4.1 Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report,
learned counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the
allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the appellant does not
deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to
place on record custody certificate dated 9.12.2025 in Court, which is
taken on record.
4.2 Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/complainant has
argued that there is clear/cogent evidence available against the appellant.
Learned counsel has further submitted that as many as 16 injuries have
3 of 6
been inflicted upon the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be said at this
juncture that the appellant has not participated in the offence. Learned
counsel has further submitted that beatings were given to the deceased in
the house of the appellant by tying his hands and legs by the appellant
alongwith others. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of
instant bail is prayed for.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The appellant was arrested in the present case on 16.12.2023
whereinafter challan stands presented in the Court on 14.3.2024. Total 32
prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 5 have been
examined and 6 have been given up. At this juncture, it would be
apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024;
relevant whereof reads as under:-
"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective
of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency
as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution."
6.1 The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues
4 of 6
which shall essentially 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 appellant
absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution
evidence.
6.2 As per custody certificate dated 9.12.2025 filed by learned State
counsel, the appellant has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01
year, 11 months and 25 days & is not shown to be involved in any other
case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the appellant as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present appeal is allowed. Appellant 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 appellant shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The appellant 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.
5 of 6
(vii) The appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
appellant.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
10.12.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
