In absence of strong incriminating evidence from material witnesses, bail should be granted, emphasizing the principle of personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

1. 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.121 dated 16.04.2024, registered under Sections 302 , 323, 506, 325, 201, 148, 149 IPC , at Police Station IMT Rohtak, District Rohtak.

2. As per the allegations on 15.04.2024, Rohit, son of complainant – Ajit had gone for a walk after having his supper and sometime thereafter the complainant heard some noises, on hearing which, he came out of his house and found that three youths, who were sitting on a scooty vehicle were present at the nearby liquor shop and were hurling abuses and shouting. His son had objected to the same and they were also abusing him. The complainant went towards them and asked them to stop. All three of them disclosed their names as Vishwajeet, Neeraj and Anuj on asking. They extended threats to the complainant and his son and then went away. Sometime thereafter, the above named accused came there along with 3-4 more youths and opened an assault upon Rohit by striking blows with lathis and dandas. The complainant along with some other persons rushed for his rescue but they too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants and thereafter, they fled away. The victim Rohit was rushed to the hospital but died during the course of treatment. On the basis of statement recorded by the injured Naveen and Sunil on 16.04.2024, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused. Accused Vishwajeet was arrested on 17.04.2024 and he too took the name of the petitioner as one of the assailants. The petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2024. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement, on the basis of which he got recovered an iron pipe used at the time of occurrence as well as the clothing worn by him. The co- accused was also arrested and presently the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Neither the complainant nor injured and other eye witnesses have implicated him in commission of the subject crime, while appearing as witnesses before the learned trial Court. The witness, who had allegedly given CCTV footage of the camera capturing the incident has also turned hostile. He has not proved his certificate under Section 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial is likely to take time since out of 27 witnesses, only 05 have been examined so far. Some other assailants, who were juveniles have been extended benefit of bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well grievous injuries to the injured Naveen and Sunil and fatal injuries to Rohit son of the complainant, which resulted in his death. However, neither the complainant nor injured Naveen and Sunil and any of the eye witnesses have implicated the petitioner in the subject crime in their