AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.92 dated 05.05.2025, registered under Sections 190(3), 190, 115, 118(1), 109(1) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 148, 149, 321, 324, 307 and 425 IPC), at Police Station NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana.
As per the prosecution case, on 05.05.2025, a rukka was received regarding admission of injured Jagnoor Singh son of Harjinder Singh, resident of House No. 5/119, NIT-5, Faridabad, at Escort Fortis Hospital, Faridabad, after he had sustained injuries in a fight. ASI Hidayat Khan reached the hospital and obtained MLR No. RM/55/2025 dated 05.05.2025. An application was moved for recording the statement of the injured; however, the doctor opined that the patient was not fit to make a statement. Thereafter, the father of the injured, namely Harjinder Singh, made a complaint stating that at about 3:18 a.m. he had received a telephone call from Navneet Ahuja informing him that his son Jagnoor Singh had sustained injuries and had been taken to Fortis Hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, Suraj and Navneet Ahuja, stated to be friends of the injured, informed him that Sahil Bhadana @ Banny Bhadana and his associates had caused injuries to Jagnoor Singh, who was admitted in the ICU and had undergone surgery. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered. During investigation, the statement of injured Jagnoor Singh was subsequently recorded under Section 180 BNSS. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was involved in the occurrence along with the other co-accused persons. The petitioner is stated to have been implicated, inter alia, on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Sahil Bhadana, wherein an allegation was made regarding the petitioner having caused injury to the injured. Pursuant to investigation, a knife was allegedly recovered from the petitioner from an open field after about 11 days of the occurrence. The prosecution case further proceeds on the allegation that the occurrence involved several persons and that the injured had sustained injuries during the said altercation. The petitioner was arrested on 15.05.2025 and has remained in custody thereafter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is the third petition for regular bail. The first bail application bearing CRM-M-58305 of 2025 was withdrawn on 28.10.2025, whereas the second bail application bearing CRM-M-13180 of 2026 was withdrawn on 21.04.2026. It is submitted that the present petition is maintainable in view of the subsequent change in circumstances, particularly the further period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, completion of investigation, presentation of challan and the fact that the trial has not progressed and none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 15.05.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was any specific role attributed to him by the injured in his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. Rather, the injured had named other persons, while the name of the present petitioner is conspicuously absent from his statement.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has subsequently been implicated primarily on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Sahil Bhadana. It is argued that such disclosure statement, being that of a co-accused and unsupported by any independent corroborative material, cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there was admittedly no previous enmity or dispute between the petitioner and the injured, whereas the previous dispute was between the injured and co-accused Sahil Bhadana.
Learned counsel contends that the alleged recovery of a knife from the petitioner, effected after about 11 days of the alleged occurrence and from an open field, does not establish that the said knife was used in the occurrence or that the petitioner was the person who inflicted the alleged injury. In the absence of any specific attribution by the injured, the alleged recovery cannot be treated as sufficient material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the identity of the assailants was not known at the time of registration of the FIR and, despite the same, no Test Identification Parade was conducted. Thus, the presence and involvement of the petitioner at the place of occurrence remain matters to be established during trial.
Learned counsel also seeks the concession of bail on the ground of parity, submitting that several co-accused, including Mohit Awasthi, Sahil Bhadana, Ravi, Rahul, Navneet Ahuja and Aman Behl @ Shikari, have already been granted bail by the competent Courts. He further submits that investigation is complete, challan has already been presented and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. The trial is likely to take considerable time as there are 19 prosecution witnesses and not even a single witness has been examined so far. Continued incarceration of the petitioner, therefore, would serve no useful purpose.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 02.09.2026, 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 01 year 03 months and 10 days.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and that he has been implicated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, pursuant to which a knife was allegedly recovered.
Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in custody since 15.05.2025. Investigation already stands completed and challan was presented before the learned Trial Court on 08.08.2025; however, charges have not been framed till date. Further, the statement of the injured, which forms part of the record and has been annexed as Annexure P-5, attributes the repeated knife blows to co-accused Sahil Bhadana, Mohit Awasthi, Rinku Thakur. Significantly, the injured has not stated that the present petitioner was present at the spot or that he had inflicted any knife blow upon him. Thus, the specific allegation regarding use of knives is attributed to the co-accused and no specific role of causing any knife injury has been attributed to the present petitioner by the injured. The evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the prosecution is, of course, to be assessed during trial. At this stage, considering the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, completion of investigation, presentation of challan, non-framing of charges and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, 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.