[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender @ Jeetu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 March, 2026
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M)
Jitender @ Jeetu ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 18.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 24.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 24.03.2026
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. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate and
Mr. Karan Duggal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No. 3.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
1 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -2-
(for short 'the SC/ST Act') by the appellant challenging the order dated
19.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (hereinafter
referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby an application filed by him under
Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.690
dated 10.12.2023, registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 147, 148, 149, 506
and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act Police Station Adampur,
Hisar, had been dismissed.
2. As per the allegations, on 09.12.2023, an information was received
by the police regarding admission of respondent No.3/complainant Kanu @
Rahul and one Balbir in Govt. Hospital, Admapur and then having being referred
to MAMC, Agroha. A police party immediately reached at the said hospital.
Subsequently, Balbir succumbed to his injuries. Later, when the complainant
was declared fit, his statement was recorded on 10.09.2023, wherein he alleged
that he was a friend of deceased Balbir and Surender Nagar. Three-four days
prior to the incident, Anil Thalond @ Ghorta had threatened Surender Nagar.
On 09.12.2023 at about 6:30 PM, the complainant along with victim Balbir,
Surender Nagar and others went to Shubham Hotel on Agroha Road to question
the said threat, where an altercation took place, after which they returned. At
about 8:30-9:00 PM, the complainant and Balbir went on a motorcycle to
purchase liquor from a vend near BDO Block, Mandi Adampur, where they saw
about 12-13 persons, armed with iron rods, dandas and an iron rod fitted with a
motorcycle chain wheel, present along with three motorcycles and a white
Scorpio vehicle. On seeing them, the complainant and Balbir attempted to flee,
but the assailants attacked them. The complainant was beaten with rods and
2 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -3-
dandas, while Balbir took shelter in a nearby house. However, the assailants
broke open the gate and assaulted him. The assailants fled upon arrival of nearby
persons, while issuing threats. Both injured were taken by ambulance to
Government Hospital, Adampur. During treatment, Balbir disclosed in the
presence of Kamal (his brother) that Anil Thalond @ Ghorta, Rakesh @ Chunia
and Sonu Bishnoi were amongst the assailants. He died during the course of
treatment. Medical records (MLR) and other reports of the deceased were
collected and inquest proceedings were conducted. Since the victim belonged to
scheduled caste community, offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
was added. Offence under Section 325 IPC was also added.
3. As per the further allegations, on 26.02.2024, supplementary
statement of respondent No. 2 Kamal was recorded, wherein he disclosed that
his brother victim Balbir had told him in the presence of respondent No. 3 Kanu
@ Rahul that the appellant, Sher Singh @ Shera Godara, Pawan, Gautam, Anil
Thalond @ Ghorta, Sonu Bishnoi and Khadak Singh were amongst the
assailants, who caused injuries to him on the fateful day. On the basis of the
same, the appellant and other persons, who were previously not nominated, were
nominated in this case as an accused.
4. During the course of investigation, co-accused Rakesh and Khadak
Singh were found to be innocent. An SIT was constituted on 10.07.2024 to carry
out the further investigation. In the further investigation conducted by the SIT,
co-accused Gautam, Anil Thalond @ Ghorta and Sonu Bishnoi were also found
innocent. However, the appellant was arrested on 20.09.2024. Co-accused
Sajjan, Lalit @ Lakshay and Sonu son of Sher Singh were also arrested. They
3 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -4-
suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime.
Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed. The appellant
along with abovenamed three co-accused is facing trial for commission of
aforementioned offences. The appellant had moved an application before the
trial Court seeking grant of regular bail but the same had been dismissed, vide
impugned order dated 19.11.2025.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned
order dated 19.11.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the
same, the trial Court ignored the fact that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in this case at a highly belated stage. He was neither named in the
FIR nor in the initial statement of the complainant recorded immediately after
the occurrence. His name has surfaced for the first time in the supplementary
statement dated 26.02.2024, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 78
days, which renders the prosecution version inherently doubtful and is indicative
of an afterthought. It is further submitted that even as per the prosecution case,
the deceased/victim Balbir, before his death, had disclosed the names of certain
assailants, namely Anil Thalond @ Ghorta, Rakesh @ Chunia and Sonu Bishnoi
but did not name the appellant. Most surprisingly, all the three persons named
by the deceased in his last statement, namely Anil Thalond @ Ghorta, Rakesh
@ Chunia and Sonu Bishnoi, have been found innocent and exonerated during
the course of investigation. Even some of the co-accused named by respondent
No. 2 Kamal in his supplementary statement on 26.02.2024 have been
exonerated by the police. The trial is being conducted only against four accused
including the present appellant. The entire implication of the appellant rests
4 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -5-
upon a belated supplementary statement of the brother of the deceased
(respondent No. 2 herein), which is nothing but an improved version and carries
weak evidentiary value.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that even in
the supplementary statement of respondent No. 2, no specific role or overt act
has been attributed to the appellant and the allegations against him are general
and omnibus in nature. The prosecution has relied upon disclosure statements of
co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected
from the appellant so as to connect him with the alleged crime. It is also
contended that the essential ingredients for attracting the provisions of the
SC/ST Act are not made out, as there is no material to suggest that the offence
was committed on account of the caste of the deceased. Investigation stands
completed and the challan has already been presented. The appellant is in
custody since long. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. No
useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration of the appellant.
The appellant is a permanent resident and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the evidence. In these circumstances, it is urged
that the appellant be granted the concession of regular bail.
7. Initially, respondent No. 2 was represented through his counsel
before this Court. However, on the date of hearing arguments and reserving the
judgment as well as on previous date i.e. 26.02.2026, there was no representation
on his behalf.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/complainant has submitted
that he has no objection, if the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is
5 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -6-
released on bail.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious
allegations against the appellant, who along with co-accused had inflicted fatal
injuries to victim Balbir, which resulted into his death. The victim, who
belonged to a schedule caste, had died a homicidal death. The mere fact that the
appellant came to be nominated at a later stage does not absolve him of criminal
liability, particularly when his name has surfaced during the course of
investigation through the statements of material witnesses. The role attributed to
the appellant indicates his active participation in the occurrence. The trial is
going on at a proper pace. There are chances of the appellant's intimidating the
witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
10. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
11. The appellant is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful
assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that
unlawful assembly, is further alleged to have participated in the assault which
ultimately resulted in the death of victim Balbir. However, a careful examination
of the record reveals that the appellant was neither named in the FIR nor in the
initial version of the prosecution. In fact, his implication is based only upon a
supplementary statement recorded by respondent No. 2, who is brother of the
victim, after a delay of 78 days. It is further significant to note that the deceased,
before his death, had named certain persons as assailants but the appellant was
not amongst them. Respondent No. 2 was present with the victim when he made
6 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -7-
dying declaration naming abovenamed three persons as their assailants but the
appellant was never named either by respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 as
one of the assailants. His name surfaced in this case only after 78 days of the
occurrence when supplementary statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded.
This delay, coupled with the fact that no specific role or overt act has been
attributed to the appellant, creates a prima facie doubt regarding the exact nature
of his involvement at this stage. Even more significantly, all those persons who
were named by the deceased in his last disclosure have been found innocent
during investigation. The foundation of the prosecution case, therefore, appears
to have undergone a material shift and the subsequent implication of the
appellant, based primarily on an improved version, requires cautious
consideration at the stage of bail. It is also an admitted position that even some
of the accused persons, named by respondent No. 2 in his supplementary
statement on 26.02.2024, have been exonerated by the police during
investigation. The investigation stands concluded and the challan has already
been presented. The appellant has been in custody since 20.09.2024. The trial is
likely to take time to conclude. In such circumstances, continued incarceration
of the appellant would not serve any useful purpose, particularly when the
evidence against him is yet to be tested during trial. Keeping in view the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the appellant deserves to be given benefit of regular bail.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his
furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of
7 of 8
CRA-S-3743-2025 (O&M) -8-
the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the
evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) He shall not leave the country under any
circumstance without permission of the learned trial
Court and shall surrender his passport, if any, with the
trial Court.
(iii) He shall appear before the learned trial Court as
and when directed.
(iv) He shall provide his permanent as well as the
address where he would be residing after release and
shall not change the same without informing the
concerned IO/SHO.
(v) The appellant shall upon his release give details of
his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and
shall keep his mobile phone switched on all times.
13. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the
appellant, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
14. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing
on the merits of the case.
24.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
