Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vaibhav Alias Mithu vs State Of Haryana on 19 November, 2025
CRM-M-64244-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
242
CRM-M-64244-2025
*****
VAIBHAV ALIAS MITHU .............Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent
Date of decision : 19.11.2025
Date of uploading:19.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Shubham Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.225 dated 23.9.2024 under
Sections 310(2), 251(b), 190, 191(3), 115, 238 and 140(3) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 310(2) and 238 of BNS were added and
Sections 303 and 251(b) were deleted later on), registered at Police
Station GRP, Ambala Cantt. District GRP Ambala Cantt.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
"Statement of Abhishek S/o Santram, resident of House No. 1126 Milap
Nagar Ambala City, Police Station Sadar Ambala City District Ambala
Age 23 years M-8569990135. Stated that I am a resident of the above
address and doing labour work. I went to Mata Vaishno Devi by train on
20-09-2024 with my friends Rohit, Nishant and Saurav Kumar. On 22-09-
1 of 5
2024, I and my three friends boarded the train for Ambala Cantt at around
3-20 pin by taking railway tickets Our train reached Ambala Cantt.
railway station on 23-09- 2024 at around 00-30 AM. I and my friends
reached the parking RLY STN A/CANTT to pick up our motorcycle where
we had parked our motorcycle on 20-09-2024. My friend Saurav had gone
to the parking with a slip to pick up his motorcycle. I. Nishant and Rohit
were standing outside waiting for Saurav to come with the motorcycle.
Then I heard Saurav shouting and I saw Rahul Walia standing in front of
me with a Gandasa in his hand, Sharif Sahil Rathore with an iron pipe-like
rod in his hand, Mitthu Vabhay Rio Kabir Nagar also with an iron rod in
his hand, Rudra Pratap who has a gym at Jagadhari Gate with an iron
pipe-like rod in his hand, he attacked my right leg with the rod due to
which I started staggering. Meanwhile my three friends ran away from the
spot on seeing fight. After that Anubhav Sood hit me on the head with a
heavy object. Rimpi Sardar put something like a pistol in my mouth and
said that if 1 made any noise, I would shoot you. Deepak also hit me
several times with an iron rod. Then they forcibly put me in a car,
blindfolded me and took me to some unknown place room. In the room
also they stripped me naked and beat me After hitting me on my face, they
all urinated on my face. At that time my tight leg was broken below the
knee and blood was flowing from my head. They snatched my mobile
phone, ATM card, my purse from me and took my ATM CARD password
from me which I had told to be wrong. At the time when I was being.
assaulted in the room, some other associates of Rahul Walia also
assaulted me, whose names I do not know, but I can recognize them if they
come in front of me. After that Rahul Walia, Anubhav Sood, Mithu @
Vaibhav and Rudra Pratap put me in a Scorpio car and threw me on a
stretcher trolley lying in front of the emergency gate of Civil Hospital
Sector 6 Panchkula and left. It was four in the morning at that time. Seeing
me lying outside on the stretcher, the hospital staff brought me inside I
told the staff about the incident that happened with me and taking a phone
call from some poor person, I told my brother about the incident and my
brother came to me at around 8 am. My treatment is going on in
Panchkula Civil Hospital. I request you to take legal action against the
above mentioned people who beat me up. I can very well identify the
people who heat me up if they come in front of me. I am getting my
statement written in full consciousness in the presence of my brother
Sandeep. I have read my statement because I am a 9 pass and I claim to
take legal action."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 29.09.2024. Learned counsel has further iterated that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question.
Learned counsel has further argued that, assuming arguendo, the
prosecution version is taken to be correct, the role attributed to the
petitioner is causing a simple injury. Learned counsel has further argued
that the said injured Abhishek already stands examined as PW-2. Learned
counsel has further iterated that the complainant has fabricated the FIR
2 of 5
version as there is impending rivalry between him and the complainant.
Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
18.11.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2024 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 21.12.2024.
Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 2 have been
examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will
take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give
rise to debatable issues which shall 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
petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the
prosecution evidence.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 18.11.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 01 year 1 month and 20 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 more cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the
antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering
3 of 5
a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a
ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of
regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner 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 petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
4 of 5
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner 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
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
19.11.2025
ja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
