AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 623 dated 13.10.2025, registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109(1), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (corresponding to Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 IPC), and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.
As per the prosecution version, on 13.10.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., complainants Saleem and Talim were present at their house at Village Balhera when accused Haroon, Farooq, Sada, Sahil, Shah Rukh and others allegedly came there, abused them and threatened to kill them. It is alleged that, thereafter, the accused returned along with their companions in 7-8 vehicles and 10-12 motorcycles and, pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy, entered the complainants' house, assaulted them with weapons and also fired shots from pistols with an intention to kill them. During the occurrence, Talim, Saleem, Wajid Ali, Tarip, Husan, Sajid Ali and Savej allegedly sustained injuries and were referred to Government Hospital, Karnal. On receipt of a Dial-112 call, the police reached the spot after about 20-25 minutes, by which time the accused had allegedly fled. The Scene of Crime Team inspected the place of occurrence and blood swabs, blood-stained earth and broken glass/plastic pieces were taken into possession. One live .315 bore cartridge was also recovered from vehicle No. HR-91-C-3070. The injured persons were medically examined and their respective MLRs were collected, wherein the nature of several injuries was initially kept pending and the weapons were mentioned as blunt. On the basis of the complaint, MLRs and material collected during investigation, present FIR was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR, which was initially registered against a large number of persons, including several unknown persons. It is contended that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence and no injury has been assigned to him. Learned counsel further submits that although a gandasi is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, the MLRs of the injured persons mention the weapon of offence as blunt, and the alleged grievous injury sustained by Talim has also not been attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that affidavits dated 05.06.2026 furnished by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 specifically state that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged occurrence and was wrongly implicated. Learned counsel also relies upon the orders whereby several co-accused, including persons from whom alleged firearms were recovered, have already been granted regular bail, contending that the petitioner stands on a better footing on the principle of parity. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.02.2026, the main challan was presented on 11.12.2025 and the supplementary challan on 23.04.2026. The trial is presently at the stage of framing of charge and there are 28 prosecution witnesses, and therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 16.08.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 05 months and 20 days. Mr. Manmeet Singh, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and submits that the allegations in the FIR are serious in nature and pertain to an armed assault by a large group of accused persons, who allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant party and caused injuries with an intention to kill. It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of the unlawful assembly and a gandasi is stated to have been recovered from his possession during investigation.
Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. 05 months and 20 days, and the fact that the investigation stands completed, the main challan as well as the supplementary challan have already been presented before the learned Trial Court, and the trial is presently at the stage of framing of charge, this Court finds that the petitioner has already undergone substantial incarceration. It is further noteworthy that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner, and although a gandasi is stated to have been recovered from him, the medical evidence, as noticed from the MLRs, indicates injuries caused by a blunt weapon, with no injury specifically attributed to the petitioner. Further, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have furnished affidavits stating that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged occurrence. There are 28 prosecution witnesses to be examined and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-
The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.
The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.
The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.