Ashu Kumar @ Aashish Kumar & Anr. vs State Of Haryana

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

Vide these petitions under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petitioners named above seek regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 310 dated 08.10.2024 under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 333, 238, 351(2), 109(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar. Offence under Section 103 BNS was added in the FIR during investigation. Both are first petitions for regular bail.

Complainant Neha Devi wife of Goldy made a complaint alleging that on 08.10.2024 at about 10:00 AM, while she was alone at her house, Riya (wife of Rajbir) and her father-in-law Bala Ram came to her residence. Due to an old enmity, they started abusing her and asked the whereabouts of her brother-in-law Jasbir alias Bhadu. Upon her refusal to disclose any information, both of them assaulted her with dandas, causing injuries, particularly on her stomach. On hearing the hue and cry, neighbours gathered, upon which the accused fled away from the spot while extending threats to kill her and her family members. Subsequently, her family members arrived at the house. Considering her injured condition, her husband Goldy, sister-in-law Reena, and brother-in-law Jasbir alias Bhadu took her to Civil Hospital, Saraswati Nagar for treatment. While she was undergoing treatment, a group of assailants arrived at the hospital in multiple vehicles. One vehicle entered the hospital premises, while others were parked outside. The assailants, approximately 20-25 persons, were armed with dandas, iron rods, swords, and knives. They launched a violent attack on her brother-in-law Jasbir Singh alias Bhadu, shouting that he should be killed and not spared. The sudden attack created panic at the hospital and staff along with bystanders gathered at the spot. The complainant stated that she recognized several attackers, namely Bala Ram, Rajbir, Kamaljeet, Riya, Ritu, Sahil, Arjun, Shubham, Himanshu and Sagar along with other unidentified persons. During the incident, certain personal belongings such as gold earrings, a silver chain, and a mobile phone were lost. Jasbir Singh sustained severe injuries in the attack and was initially referred from Mustafabad Hospital to PGI Chandigarh. He was also taken to Mullana Hospital and later to Raj Hospital, Yamunanagar, for further treatment. Despite medical intervention, his condition remained critical and he later succumbed to his injuries.

Learned counsel for petitioner-Lovish submits that petitioner was in judicial custody w.e.f. 04.11.2024 i.e. for the last 01 year 11 months and 23 days. He was not named in the FIR, nor any specific role or injury was attributed to him. He was implicated on disclosure statement of co-accused, which was not admissible in evidence. No weapon was recovered from his possession. During the course of trial, complainant was examined but she did not identify the petitioner as one of the assailants or member of unlawful assembly, which allegedly committed the offence. As such, he deserved to be released on regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Ashu Kumar @ Aashish Kumar submits that petitioner was in judicial custody w.e.f. 14.10.2025 i.e. for the last 01 year and 13 days. He was not named in the FIR and was involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ahmed Hussain, that too, after one year of the occurrence. Even during investigation, petitioner was not attributed any specific role, overt act or injury and was named as a part of the large group involved in the occurrence. No weapon of offence was recovered from his possession. Investigation in the case was complete. Challan stood presented and charges were framed. Complainant Neha, though named him in her examination-in-chief but denied his participation in cross-examination. As such, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.

Learned State counsel has filed reply along with custody certificates of petitioner(s) and opposed the prayer for regular bail in both petitions arguing that recovery of car number HR-05AH-1678 along with stick and bamboo used in the commission of offence was effected from petitioner-Lovish who was specifically named by complainant Neha Devi in her application dated 08.10.2024 as one of the assailants. His call detail records and CAF were also obtained along with certificate under Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act indicating his complicity. Thus, strong prima facie case was established against him. In case of release on bail, he was likely to mis-use the concession.

Learned State counsel also opposed the prayer for regular bail on behalf of petitioner-Aashish @ Ashu submitting that he too was an active participant in the occurrence, he inflicted blows to the deceased resulting in serious injuries, to which he later succumbed. There was another criminal case registered against him. Only one witness was examined in the trial, evidentiary value of her statement was to be adjudged by learned trial Court upon conclusion of trial. Allegations against the petitioners were serious and he did not deserve the concession of regular bail.

Even though, complainant Neha Devi has been examined during the trial, there are other eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who are yet to be recorded. The intrinsic value and worth of statement of the complainant would be adjudged by learned trial Court at the relevant stage, after considering entire evidence led by the prosecution. Given the serious nature of allegations against the petitioners, quantum of punishment conviction may entail and gravity of charge, mere period of incarceration is not sufficient for release on bail. Act attributed to the petitioners has resulted in loss of a precious human life. No ground for release of petitioners on regular bail is made out. The petitions being bereft of merit are hereby dismissed.

Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.