Sanjay Singh and others vs State of Haryana

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.56 dated 08.03.2025, under Sections 115,190,191(3), 351(3), 325, 109(1), 117(3) of BNS, registered at Police Station Sadar Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties, i.e. complainant/injured/victim party and accused persons (petitioners herein), are neighbours in the village and share a common wall.

As per the allegations, the incident occurred on 26.02.2025 at about 11:00 A.M. when the complainant party was fencing their plot with wire. FIR was registered against total 17 accused persons, namely, Chhaju Singh son of Umrao, Pawan, Chittar, Ratan, Sunil, Ajay, Ramesh, Sombir, Sanjay, Om Prakash, Santosh, Santra, Sachin, Suman, Bimla, Babli, and Santosh.

From the complainant side, four persons sustained injuries, namely, Chhaju Singh son of Prabhu Singh (two injuries), Randhir (four injuries), Mukesh (one injury), and Amarpal (one injury). Out of the four injuries suffered by Randhir, three were declared grievous and collectively dangerous to life.

Further submits that FIR was registered belatedly on 08.03.2025, i.e. about ten days after the incident, without specifying, as to which particular accused had caused injuries to which specific victim. Subsequently, a supplementary statement of injured Randhir, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.03.2025, wherein he alleged that three grievous injuries were caused by accused Sanjay Singh, Sunil, and Om Prakash, using iron spears and iron rods. It is, however, not the case that anyone from the accused side suffered any injury in the said incident.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that delay in registration of FIR creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution version and suggests possible concoction. He further submits that attribution of grievous injuries to accused Sunil, Sanjay, and Om Prakash came much later, i.e. 13 days after the registration of FIR.

It is also argued that though 17 accused have been named in the FIR, only four victims sustained total eight injuries, out of which merely three were grievous, and the rest were simple in nature. Had all 17 persons actively participated in the assault, the number and severity of injuries would have been much higher.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance to the directions twice issued by this Court, statements of total 05 of the witnesses including 03 injured persons namely Randhir (PW-1), Chhajju Singh (PW-2), Balbir Singh (PW-3), Mukesh (PW-4), and Amarpal (PW-5) have been recorded. He further submits that an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the complainant was dismissed by the trial Court, however, assailing the dismissal order, complainant has filed a revision petition before this Court i.e. CRR No. 1410 of 2026, which is pending adjudication without any interim order. Petitioners are inside jail since 04.11.2025, thus, prays for grant of concession of regular bail.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baljeet Singh confirms that the parties are co-villagers and are residing in the same locality and have no past criminal history.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record with their able assistance.

Considering the aspect that there are total 19 witnesses and only 05 have been examined, therefore, possibility of culmination of trial in its near future does not appear feasible. Moreover, petitioners have already remained in custody for a sufficient period and all the injured witnesses also stands examined in the Court. There is no reason to deny bail as the parties are not in a position to influence or impress upon the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, nature of allegations, period of incarceration already undergone, and the stage of trial, this Court deems it a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

Petition stands disposed of.

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.