Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 30 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014435
-1-
228-CRA-S-4097-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-4097-2024
Date of decision: 30.01.2025
Ankit ....Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present:- Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
.....
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
Custody certificate dated 28.01.2025 filed by learned
State Counsel in Court today is taken on record.
2. Instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated
09.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby
the bail application of the appellant had been dismissed in the
following case:-
FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station
99 04.03.2024 323, 325, 307, 341, 506 and 34 Jind City,
IPC; District Jind
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989
no. 2), Mo
3. Heard.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014435
228-CRA-S-4097-2024
4. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case. He contends that the appellant is in custody since
11.08.2024. He contends that no specific overt act is attributed to the
appellant, as he is alleged to be sitting in the vehicle at the relevant
time. He contends that the similarly situated co-accused namely Harpal
Singh, has already been granted the concession of bail by acceptance of
his appeal vide judgment dated 12.12.2024, in CRA-S-4003-2024,
'Harpal Singh vs. State of Haryana and another'. He further contends
that the matter has been compromised with the complainant vide
compromise deed dated 14.10.2024. Hence, the instant appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel by referring to the
reply submitted by the State has assailed the arguments by submitting
that the appellant had participated in the occurrence and as such, he
does not deserve the concession of bail. However, he has not disputed
the fact that no specific overt act is attributed to the appellant as he was
one of the occupants of the scorpio, driven by the co-accused, Navjot.
It is not disputed that the case of the appellant is at the same footing as
was that of Harpal Singh in CRA-S-4003-2024 (supra).
6. Mr. Ajay Beniwal, Advocate, has entered appearance on
behalf of the complainant, and filed his vakalatnama. The same is taken
on record. He has admitted the factum of the appellant being at the
same footing with that of the aforesaid Harpal Singh and has also
placed on record copy of the affidavit given by the complainant,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014435
228-CRA-S-4097-2024
namely Sandeep son of Mahabir. He has categorically stated that the
appellant had not inflicted any injury on him and, as such, has no
objection, if, the appellant is granted concession of bail.
7. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the
record, it transpires that instant FIR was registered on the complaint
given by Sandeep alleging that on 03.03.2024 at about 09 AM while he
and his friend Subhash were talking in the car near Tikona Park, then
at about 9.30 AM, Vicky came there and informed that 02 persons were
quarreling with him on which the complainant and Sandeep went to the
place and tried to intervene and after some arguments, those persons
left the place. After some time one black scorpio came there and hit the
complainant and Vicky. The driver again hit after reversing and 4-5
persons alighted there from and starting giving beatings with fist and
kick blows. After hearing noise, some neighbors came there and the
assailants ran away from the spot and on the basis of allegations, FIR
was registered.
8. Admittedly, no specific overt act is attributed to the
petitioner by the complainant nor he is named in the FIR. As per the
allegations and the status report, the petitioner is not the alleged driver
of the Scorpio vehicle which had hit into the complainant. Admittedly,
similarly situated co-accused namely Harpal Singh (supra) has already
been granted concession of bail by allowing his appeal vide CRA-S-
4003-2024 (supra). There is a compromise also placed on record by
learned counsel for the complainant himself pleading no objection in
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014435
228-CRA-S-4097-2024
case the bail is granted to the appellant as he has not done anything.
Even otherwise, there is no allegation of the appellant having exhorted
casteist remarks against the complainant, therefore, considering the fact
that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor any specific overt
act is attributed to him in causing any injury to the complainant or
having exhorted any casteist remarks coupled with the fact that the
matter has already been compromised as per the affidavit given by the
complainant, no purpose would be served by detaining the appellant in
custody any more, especially when after completion of investigation
challan has already been presented in the Court wherein the
prosecution has cited 25 witnesses and till date none has been
examined, which will take sufficient long time for the learned Trial
Court to conclude its trial nor to ascertain the criminal liability, if any,
of the appellant.
9. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances,
without commenting on the merits of the case, instant appeal is hereby
allowed. The order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jind, is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be
released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly
appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior
permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of
prosecution in any manner.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014435
228-CRA-S-4097-2024
10. Any observation made above shall not be construed as
opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(SANJIV BERRY)
30.01.2025 JUDGE
preeti
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
