Paras vs State of Haryana

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in case vide FIR No.90 dated 27.05.2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 127(2), 325 (2), 61(2), 331(5), 190 and 191(3) BNS Police Station Babain, Kurukshetra. This is the first petition seeking regular bail.

On 26.05.2026, S.I. Balbir Dutt along with S.I. Sudesh Kumar was present at Police Station Babain when SI Balbir Dutt, received a video on his mobile phone, wherein some youths were seen taking tea at a tea stall, while two-three boys were outside, carrying a gandasi type weapon attached to the garari of the motorcycle and another youth was carrying a binda. They attacked the youths sitting in the tea shop, with intention to kill them and damaged the shop. Owner of mobile No. 8930572700 disclosed his name as Virender Kumar son of Mahender Singh and stated that the incident occurred on 19.05.2026 at about 04:25 PM at his tea shop, near Government School, village Prehladpur. In the incident some persons were injured and his shop was damaged. He later made the video viral apprehending danger to his life and property.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner prays for release of the petitioner on bail arguing that the incident occurred on 19.05.2026, the FIR was delayed by 8 days and it was not before 27.05.2026 that case was registered. FIR was registered against unknown persons. All the injuries allegedly suffered were simple in nature. Petitioner was not even present at the spot and could not be seen in the video. He had been joined as an accused invoking Section 61 BNS. Petitioner, who was in custody since 27.05.2026, thus, deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Learned state counsel has filed status report opposing the prayer for regular bail. It is argued that during investigation of the case, on the basis of call detail record, it was found that on 19.05.2026 between 3.17 p.m. to 8.47 p.m. numerous times, petitioner spoke to co-accused Sonu and Saurabh. At the time of incident, petitioner was found present near by. The offences were committed on directions of petitioner. Learned State counsel, however, concedes that investigation of the case was complete. Prayer for bail is opposed on the ground that offence is serious in nature.

Petitioner, who is 19 years old, is in custody w.e.f. 27.05.2026. His antecedents are clean. There is no other case registered against him. Investigation of the case is complete. Concededly, all injuries suffered by the injured are simple in nature. Trial is likely to take sometime to conclude. Petitioner cannot be deprived of his liberty as there are no exceptional grounds made out to refuse bail. There is no reason to suspect that petitioner would flee from process of law or tamper with evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.