IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.
Harish - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-937 of 2026
Decided On : 01-04-2026
JUDGMENT :
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.
1. Petitioner, who is co-accused in case FIR No. 436 dated 24.09.2025, registered against him under Sections 190, 191(3), 115, 324(1), 351(2),126(2), 333, 110 of BNS, challan presented u/s 190, 191(3), 115(2), 324(4), 351(3),126(2), 333, 110, 117(2) of BNS, at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal, has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition have been taken from para 2 of the Status report dated 19.03.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Sahil Dhillon, Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ Palwal, District Palwal.
“That the brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2025, SI Subhash Chand No. 940, Police Post Bhawan Kund, Palwal received information at police post that injured Amit son of Rohtash, resident of Dukdiya Mohalla, Palwal had been admitted to Civil Hospital, Palwal after being injured in a fight. Upon receiving the information, SI Subhash Chand along with Constable Ankit No. 640, reached at Civil Hospital, Palwal. There, MLR No. DT/CHP/701/2025 dated 24.09.2025 of injured Amit was obtained. As per the doctor, a total of 5 injuries were found and the opinion was noted as: KUO advised, NCCT Head advised, X- ray advised, Surgeon opinion and Ortho opinion. A written opinion was sought from the doctor regarding whether the injured was fit to give a statement. The doctor replied that injured Amit was not present in the hospital at that time. Thereafter. SI Subhash Chand along with Constable Ankit, conducted inquiries and reached at SKR Hospital, Rasulpur Road, Palwal. A written opinion was again sought from the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to give a statement. The doctor declared the injured fit to give his statement. Injured Amit submitted a written complaint in which he has stated that on 23.09.2025, I along with Vicky son of Sh. Hitender, resident of Bhatia Colony, Palwal, Tasleem son of Ruddar and Hemraj son of Vijay, residents of Dukdiya Mohalla, Palwal had come from Ballabhgarh to Palwal. At about 12:30 midnight, we stopped near HUDA Chowk at Punjabi Dhaba, Palwal to get food packed. At that time, one white WagonR car and one white Brezza car arrived. The driver of the WagonR stopped his car in front of our vehicle, blocking our way. From the vehicles, (i) Rinku son of Hariom, (ii) Aditya, (iii) Rajesh, residents of Dayabasti, Palwal, (iv) Kapil son of Karan, resident of Gorilla Mohalla, Palwal, (v) Isha son of Farooq, (vi) Hatim son of Haroon, (vii) Wasim son of Iliyas, residents of Sanjay Colony, Palwal, (viii) (Sumit son of Rakesh, resident of Dayabasti, Palwal, (ix) Saurabh, resident of Naya Gaon, Palwal and 5-6 other persons came out armed with farsa (sharp-edged weapon), iron rods and sticks. As soon as they arrived, they launched a sudden and continuous attack upon me. Kapil struck me with a farsa. Rinku hit my left hand with a stick. Aditya struck my head with an iron rod. Saurabh hit my legs with a stick. Aditya also damaged my vehicle with the iron rod. Isha, Hatim and Saurabh also beat me with sticks. On seeing a crowd gathering, all the accused persons fled from the spot in their vehicles after threatening to kill me in future. On the basis of which present FIR No. 436 dated 24.09.2025, under section 190, 191(3), 115(2), 324(4), 351(3), 126(2), 333, 110, 117(2) of BNS has been lodged at P.S. City Palwal, District Palwal which is attached with this petition as annexure P-1. The copy of MLR of injured Amit is attached herewith as Annexure R-1.”
Admittedly, petitioner was not named in the FIR, his name cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Aditya @ Aadi, who pointed out that present petitioner had also participated in the incident in which complainant had been mercilessly thrashed. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2025. During interrogation, he confessed to his involvement in the commission of offence and got recovered the ‘ stick ’ used in
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
Confessional statements of co-accused to police inadmissible under CrPC Section 162 and Evidence Act Section 25; insufficient alone to deny bail without other incriminating material, per bail princip....
The court ruled that bail should be denied due to the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents and involvement in the crime, emphasizing the need for public safety.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail depends on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane att....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.