Suraj @ Pitbull vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been 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. 119 dated 20.02.2025 registered under Sections 115, 126, 190 and 191(3) at Police Station Palla, District Faridabad.

As per the allegations, on 19.02.2025, on receipt of information regarding admission of one Akash @ Kallu son of Subhash, at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, on account of injuries sustained in some altercation, a police party reached the hospital. The police obtained an opinion regarding the condition of the injured Akash alias Kallu, who was opined to be unfit to make a statement. On 20.02.2025 also, he was not found fit to make a statement. On the same day, his father submitted a written complaint alleging that on 18.02.2025, on receipt of information that his son Akash alias Kallu had sustained injuries in some scuffle and had been admitted to the hospital, he reached there and found his son was lying unconscious. On making inquiries, he came to know that on the evening of 18.02.2025, accused Suraj alias Kalu had a verbal altercation with his son and thereafter made a call to some persons. 8-9 youths, riding on three motorcycles, reached there and assaulted the victim Akash alias Kallu with rods, dandas and sticks and also gave him fist and kick blows. He was rescued by witness Vikram and was taken to the hospital. Initially, a case under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190 and 191(3) of the BNS was registered. Investigation was initiated. During investigation, accused Kapil Sharma and Suraj Singh were arrested. The victim succumbed to his injuries on 21.03.2025, whereupon Section 103(1) of the BNS was added.

During the course of further investigation, accused Suraj Singh and Kapil Sharma were arrested and they suffered disclosure statements, on the basis whereof, the petitioner and four other accused, namely Badal and Aditya alias Golu, were nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2025. During interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Some other accused were subsequently arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the FIR. He has been in custody for a period of more than ten months. He is not required for any further investigation. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in the near future, as none of the 53 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. It is also submitted that, as per the progress sheet of P.S.I.C. Medical College and Hospital, Faridabad, the petitioner had initially been admitted in the hospital with a history of a roadside accident. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer, contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. His active complicity in the crime stands established. It is submitted that the trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to suggest that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. The cause of death of the victim was gangliocapsular bleed and its complications. As per the medical opinion, the possibility of the said injuries having been sustained by way of physical assault could not be ruled out. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

The petitioner is alleged to have formed a part of an unlawful assembly along with the co-accused and, in prosecution of the common object thereof, to have assaulted the victim, thereby causing him injuries which subsequently resulted in his death. The allegations, at this stage, make out a prima facie case for commission of the subject offences against the petitioner. The circumstances prima facie suggest complicity of the petitioner in crime. It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the complainant is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). In light of the foregoing legal principles, this Court finds no compelling ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits.

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