AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 119 | 03.04.2026 | Kunjpura, District Karnal | 115, 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNS") (110 and 351(2) of BNS added later on) |
As per the allegations, on 02.04.2026, the petitioner and co-accused Abhishek who were under the influence of liquor had opened an attack upon Sahil, son of complainant Saroj and had given injuries with a knife in his abdomen. Her son was rushed to hospital and was in a critical condition.
After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 29.05.2026. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the knife used by him at the time of occurrence. Investigation now stands concluded.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded. The injury attributed to him has been opined to be simple in nature. His antecedents are clean. He himself is a specially abled person suffering 60% permanent disability of right arm. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 110 of BNS are not attracted. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
Notice of motion.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record the custody certificate and conceding that the injuries sustained by the victim have been opined to be simple in nature, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed as no exceptional circumstance for grant of bail is made out.
This Court has considered the rival submissions.
The petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any more. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.
It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.