[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas vs State Of Haryana on 27 February, 2026
CRM-M-73754-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-73754-2025 (O&M)
Vikas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 26.02.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.02.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.02.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Dr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Anshul Muwal, Advocate for the complainant.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 168 dated
29.05.2025, registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(2), 191(3) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') (Sections 109(1), 117(2),
1 of 5
CRM-M-73754-2025 (O&M) -2-
118(2) and 351(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Narwana Sadar,
District Jind.
2. As per the allegations, on 28.05.2025, victim Raman was
intercepted by accused Dayanand and Govind who had hurled abuses to him.
He went back to his house and informed about this fact to his father Sube
Singh i.e. the complainant, who had pacified him. While he was going for his
work he was intercepted by the above named persons along with the co-
accused who opened an attack upon him and caused several injuries to his son
with their respective weapons while making exhortation. When the
complainant and his wife rushed for rescue of their son, they too sustained
injuries at the hands of the petitioner and the co-accused. They were rushed to
the hospital. On the statement of the complainant-Sube Singh, initially a case
under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of BNS was
registered. Subsequently offences under Sections 109(1), 117(2), 118(2) and
351(2) were added. The statement of Govind son of the complainant, who too
sustained injuries was also recorded on 02.06.2025 on the basis of which,
some other persons were also nominated in this case. The name of the
petitioner surfaced in this case on the basis of the CCTV footage of the
incident, wherein he was seen carrying a wooden stick in his hand and was
inflicting injuries upon victim Raman. He was arrested on 03.06.2025.
Investigation now stands concluded.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. No specific injury has been attributed to him.
Even no recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since
03.06.2025. He is not required for further investigation. It is a case of version
2 of 5
CRM-M-73754-2025 (O&M) -3-
and cross-version as members of the accused party had also sustained injuries
at the hands of members of the complainant party. A complaint was moved by
one of the accused namely Ravinder but no action was taken against the
complainant party. Investigation has since been completed and challan has
been filed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude since even
charges have not been framed. Co-accused Gurbaksh, Naresh and Rahul have
already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the
petitioner too deserves to be granted the same benefit. It is, therefore, stressed
that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned
State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently
argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against
the petitioner and the fact that as many as 09 persons had sustained injuries in
the incident and the petitioner was one of the active participant of the
unlawful assembly along with the co-accused, he does not deserve to be
released on bail.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object,
thereof is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous
injuries to 09 persons. However, no specific injury has been attributed to him.
Even no recovery is shown to have been effected from him. Though some
screenshots of the CCTV footage of incident have been placed on record
showing that the petitioner, while carrying a wooden stick in his hand, was
inflicting injuries on the victim, however, authenticity of the same can be
3 of 5
CRM-M-73754-2025 (O&M) -4-
tested only during the course of trial after appreciating the entire evidence
placed on record. The trial is likely to take considerable time since even
charges have not been framed so far. It is a case of version and cross-version.
As per the claim of the petitioner, injuries were also sustained by the members
of his party at the time of incident. Above named co-accused have already
been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. The principle of parity
also weighs in favour of the petitioner. Further incarceration of the petitioner
would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is well settled proposition of law that
bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Even otherwise pre-trial incarceration
should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Taking into
consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any
comments on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice either of the parties,
the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail,
subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the extent of two
sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not try to contact either of the injured
persons or witnesses or any material witnesses or shall not try
to threaten, induce or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any
circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of
hearing.
(iv) The petitioner shall provide his address where he would be
residing after release and shall not change the same without
informing the concerned IO/SHO.
4 of 5
CRM-M-73754-2025 (O&M) -5-
(v) The petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone
number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone
switched on all times.
(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish
details of his cell phone and Aadhaar card, and shall not
change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.
7. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the
petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if
any, is rendered infructuous.
27.02.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
