1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short- 'BNSS'), is for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.59 dated 26.06.2023, under
Sections 323, 324, 307, 354, 452, 506, 148, 149 & 212 IPC, registered at
2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"Statement of Mr. Rajesh Kumar son of Mr. Rajinder
Kumar resident of village Bagpur police station Haryana district
Hoshiarpur age about 48 years mobile number $4171-70947 stated
that I am a resident of afore-said address and employed as a senior
sales officer in Chola-Mandalam Investment and Finance Company
Limited. On. 22.6.2023, I and my wife xxxxx son Harman Rishi were
present at my house, then it would be 11.00 AM that Mani Mahesh
S/o Vijay Kumar resident of Bassi Muda Police station Hariana, with
a Kirpan, Karthik son of Shiv Kumar resident of Chaurial, PS
Bulowal, with a Kirpan, Ravi, R/o Navi Basi Police Station Hariana
with a Baseball bat and other 6/7 unidentified persons with him,
whose names 1 do not know, who also had baseballs and Kirpans,
forcibly opened the gate of our house. Thereafter, came inside and
Mani Mahesh hit me with his Kirpan 7 times continuously with the
intention of killing me, first time on the left side of my head, second
time on my right leg, third time on my right hand and fourth time on
my right hand. Fifth time on thumb and right wrist, sixth time on left
knee and seventh time below the left knee. I shouted 'I've been killed'.
My wife xxxxxx xxxx and my son Harman Rishi came forward to
rescue me. He hit my wife which hit the back of her left hand then
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -2-
secondly Ravi hit my wife with his hand baseball which hit her on the
left side of her forehead then again the unknown boy hit my wife with
his hand baseball which hit her right side His ear and his right arm
were cut off. Meanwhile, Ravi and unknown boys attacked on my
wife xxxx xxxx. Then Mani Mahesh hit my son Harman Rishi with a
kirpan/sword in his hand which hit him on the same right knee then
Ravi hit my son with his hand baseball bat which hit him on the
forehead on the left side of his head. Then, for the third time, Ravi
fired his hand-held base ball at my boy, which hit him in front of the
head. We shouted raised slogan Marr gaye, seeing the gathering of
people, all these assailants ran away. I called my office manager, Mr.
Anil Kumar Patial, son of Daljit Singh, a resident of Banjarbaj
police station, Sadar Hoshiarpur, who arranged a vehicle and
admitted the three of us to Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur for treatment,
where Doctor prepared our medical papers. Since, the condition of
my son Harman Rishi was more serious, he was referred to IVY
Hospital Hoshiarpur. It is known that Mani Mahesh used to take my
son around with him and after I forbade him, he entered my house by
force in consultation with his friends. Due legal action should be
taken against all of them who have injured me and my family with
the intention of killing me and my family. SD/- Rajesh Kumar"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the
statement of the complainant, leveling allegations that the petitioner along
with other co-accused gave beatings to the complainant and his family
members. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to
establish the alleged offences against the petitioner. Rather, there is a delay
of 04 days in registration of the FIR. Moreover, the injuries sought to be
attributed to the petitioner have been declared simple in nature. It is further
submitted that material witnesses stand examined. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody period of 02
years, 08 months and 08 days.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -3-
the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence.
Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the
same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has
undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 08 months and 08 days.
Investigation is complete. Learned State counsel submits that the charges
have been framed on 30.08.2024 and out of a total of 26 prosecution
witnesses, 09 have been examined. Learned State counsel, while referring to
the status report dated 23.04.2025, submits that the petitioner was nominated
as an accused in 7 other cases, and while he has been acquitted in FIR
No.69/2012 dated 25.08.2012 and FIR No.89/2022 dated 15.08.2022, the
petitioner is on bail in FIR No.74/2023 dated 24.07.2023, FIR No.88/2015
dated 06.10.2015, FIR No.89/2019 dated 04.08.2019 and FIR No.13/2020
dated 01.01.2020.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the
observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.
From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons
should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at
the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this
country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in
respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in
integrity of this document any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -4-
belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the
most extraordinary circumstances."
7. Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking
bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the
evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of
the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the
material on record.
8. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record
that charges came to be framed on 30.08.2024. Yet, only 09 out of 26 cited
prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings,
thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has
already remained in actual custody for a period of 02 years, 08 months and
08 days.
9. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and
determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the
parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration
of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the
accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of
justice.
10. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that
the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair
conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand
examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated
herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case
lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued
detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -5-
and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not
advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial,
obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a
punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the
trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the
settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as
reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.
11. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 that the facts and circumstances of the present
case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application
of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is
involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected.
In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
12. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
CRM-M-2415-2025(O&M) -6-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of
which he is suspected.
(v) 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 from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
14. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which
are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 06, 2026
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
