Sanjay vs State of Haryana

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

Allowed as prayed for.

Depositions of Aman (PW-1), Constable Vikas (PW-2), Kapil (PW-6) and Anup (PW-7) are taken on record as Annexures P-4 to P-7.

These three petitions are being taken up together as they arise out of the same FIR and involve common questions of fact and law.

The petitioners seek regular bail in FIR No.152 dated 19.05.2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 190, 191(3) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Narnaund, District Hansi.

The case of the prosecution, as reflected from the FIR, is that during an altercation, co-accused Pardeep allegedly inflicted an injury on the right arm of Ankit with a sharp-edged weapon which he was carrying. Thereafter, Pardeep and his companions allegedly attacked Ankit with awl sticks and other sharp-edged weapons, causing injuries to his back and hands. Pardeep is also alleged to have attempted to attack Anoop, who managed to escape. The injured Ankit was thereafter taken towards the hospital and, on the way, became unconscious. He was declared dead on reaching Hisar. The prosecution version further records that Pardeep and his 4-5 associates were responsible for the occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that none of the petitioners was named in the FIR. It is further submitted that even in the course of trial, the complainant, while appearing as PW-1, has not attributed any specific role to the petitioners or stated that all the three petitioners were accompanying the principal accused Pardeep at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioners were subsequently implicated during the course of investigation. The record of the case also shows that the names of Shokin and Sanjay surfaced subsequently in the investigation, while the name of Sumit also came to be brought into the case during further investigation. Learned counsel further submits that no specific injury is attributed to any of the petitioners. The medical material placed on record also reflects a single sharp incised injury on the right arm of the deceased, with injury to the underlying structures. The post-mortem material relied upon by the petitioners, therefore, has to be considered along with the allegations regarding the respective roles of the accused. He further submits that the trial is likely to take longtime as prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the petitions, submits that the allegations are serious in nature. It is submitted that the names of the petitioners surfaced during investigation and that recoveries were effected in the course thereof. As per the custody certificates, the petitioners are in custody for the last more than 01 year and 02 months.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposes the petitions for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioners are in custody for the last more than 01 year and 02 months and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioners would not serve the ends of justice.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners misuse the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of their bail.