Harsh @ Naniya vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.106 dated 08.06.2026 registered under Sections 110, 115, 126, 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 109(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Vikas alias Padwa, alleging therein that on the evening of 07.06.2026, he along with his friend Rahul and two more persons, namely Tanuj and Sonu alias Don, was going towards their village in his car bearing registration number HR-34-M-4717. While on the way, a Camper make vehicle came from the opposite side and directly hit the driver's side of his vehicle. The complainant found that the accused Dinesh was driver of the said vehicle and the accused Surender, Anuj and Maheshi, along with 3-4 more persons, were occupants of the same. All of them were armed with weapons. They opened an assault upon the complainant by striking blows with wooden sticks, iron pipes and axe on the person of the complainant and then, while proclaiming that they would kill him in future, they left the spot. The complainant was admitted to hospital and was provided treatment.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was procured, wherein the present petitioner along with the co-accused was seen while opening attack upon the victim. The victim had sustained as many as 13 injuries. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 351(3) and 238(3) of BNS were added and offence under Section 351(2) was deleted. The petitioner and some co-accused were arrested on 09.06.2026. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and identified the spot of occurrence. The petitioner got recovered the Camper vehicle used in the offence as well as a wooden danda. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. He is in custody since 09.06.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. His antecedents are clean. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as leveled against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the victim sustained as many as seven grievous injuries in this case, out of which two were declared to be dangerous to life, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. However, investigation now stands concluded. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Further incarceration of the petitioner is not going to serve any fruitful purpose. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. It is well-settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentence and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of release on bail in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

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.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.