Hem Singh vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 105 dated 03.08.2025 registered under Sections 110, 115, 190, 191(3), 351(2), 117(2) and 238(c) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Rohadai, District Rewari. His previous petition bearing CRM-M- No. 70077-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.03.2026.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant-Naveen alleging therein that on the night of 01.08.2025, he, along with his friend Brijesh was going towards Village Gurawada from Village Palhawas on his motorcycle. While on the way, they were intercepted by the petitioner, accused Ravinder, Pankaj, and Dinesh, who came in a Scorpio vehicle and tried to wrongfully restrain them. The complainant somehow managed to flee. The above-named persons extended threats to see him on the next day. Thereafter, on 02.08.2025, he was in the gym of his village when the petitioner and accused Ravinder, accompanied by their accomplices, all of whom were armed with weapons, reached there and opened an assault upon him by causing injuries with their respective weapons. The accused Ravinder then proclaimed that the complainant had died, and thereafter all of them fled away in the two vehicles in which they had come. The complainant identified the petitioner as driver of the Scorpio vehicle. By alleging that he had been assaulted on account of a land dispute, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded, on the basis of which, the petitioner along with some other persons were nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting the factum of joining the conspiracy and doing recce of the victim for the purpose of facilitating assault upon him by the co-accused. Investigation now stands completed.

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 by the injured and was nominated as accused on the basis of supplementary statement recorded by the complainant 15 days after the incident. This FIR was a counterblast to FIR No. 134 registered at Police Station Rohrai on 20.11.2024 by the co-accused Ravinder/ father. No specific role has been attributed to him. He is not visible in the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the place of occurrence, which captured the incident. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as no witness has been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has given a fresh ground to him to seek concession of bail. The co-accused Dalip Singh, Ravinder Yadav and Jatin Yadav have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. The involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier petition are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the victim. He was named after a gap of 15 days after the incident by the complainant. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. He has remained in custody for a considerable period. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and parity, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be extended the concession of bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.