Nxxxx (Minor) vs State Of Haryana And Anotehr
2026 Latest Caselaw 3614 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nxxxx (Minor) vs State Of Haryana And Anotehr on 21 April, 2026

                     CRM-M-20190-2026                                                  -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     230                                             CRM-M-20190-2026
                                                                     Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

                     NXXXX (MINOR)                                              ... PETITIONER
                                                             VERSUS

                     STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                               ... RESPONDENT

                     CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

                     Present:-      Mr. Rajesh Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

                     H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail

under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (439 of Cr.P.C), in FIR No. 271 dated

01.06.2025 registered under Sections 103(2) BNS (Section 302 IPC), Section

115 BNS (Section 323 IPC), Section 190 BNS (Section 149 IPC), Section

191(3) BNS (Section 148 IPC), Section 238(b) BNS (Section 201 IPC) and

351(3) BNS (Section 506 IPC) registered at Police Station Kurukshetra

University, District Kurukshetra.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his

co-accused have caused death of Ram Rattan and gave injuries to the

complainant as well. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Mohit had hit

Ram Rattan on the backside of his head with an iron rod, which proved to be

fatal and thereby caused his death. Besides, the other accused persons namely

Mohit, Sahil, Balraj, Aaryan and Vikram @ Vicky, Ram Kumar also assaulted

Purna Singh and his family members with bricks and stones. Purna Singh had

sustained injuries on his left arm and chest.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a

juvenile of 17 years of age. He further submits that the petitioner has been

attributed only a simple injury i.e. a fist blow to the deceased Ram Rattan,

however, none of the fatal injuries, which caused death of Ram Rattan, has

been attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that the fatal injuries have

been attributed to the co-accused Mohit, who had allegedly given injuries on

the backside of head of the deceased with an iron rod. It is further stated that

the petitioner (CCL) is in Observation Home for the last more than 10 months

and 09 days and inquiry against him is yet to commence and as such, the same

will take a long time to conclude. He thus prays that the petitioner be granted

the concession of regular bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent-State and vehemently opposes the petition for grant of bail on the

ground that the allegations and role attributed to the petitioner in the

commission of the alleged offence are very serious in nature and the petitioner

has actively participated in the alleged offence. Hence, he prays for dismissal

of the present petition. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent, Place of

Safety, Madhuban, Karnal has been placed on record by the learned State

Counsel, which shows that the petitioner is in Observation Home for the last

more than 10 months and 09 days.

6. Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate appears and has filed his memo of

appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Court today and the same is

taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer made by ld. counsel for

the petitioner on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is

heinous and grievous in nature.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and

taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in Observation Home for

the last more than 10 months and 09 days coupled with the fact that the inquiry

against the petitioner (CCL) will take a long time to conclude, this Court is of

the opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. Moreover, bail is

rule and jail is exception. Since the continuous incarceration of the petitioner

would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, he is entitled to regular bail

during the pendency of the trial.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on

regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate

concerned.

10. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the

concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek

cancellation of his bail.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                     21.04.2026                                                   (H.S.GREWAL)
                     renu                                                            JUDGE
                                          Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
                                          Whether reportable:                     Yes/No