IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215 CRM-M-6887-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Akash Sharma @ Joney ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.854 dated 01.10.2022, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323 IPC (Sections 216, 302 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 2 months. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Puneet Sharma, who was named in the FIR and has since been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025, after being in custody for 1 year and more than 3 months. As per the FIR, stick blows were given by an unknown person on the leg of the deceased, who passed away after 6 days and as per medical record, he was suffering from previous spinal fracture, paralysis, liver cirrhosis and Anemia etc. As per the FIR, the incident had taken place while the complainant was returning from Government Hospital, Sirsa on 01.10.2022 at 09:00 A.M., however, in the statement made by him at the time of his medico-legal examination, he is stated to have been beaten up at Sector-19, HUDA on 30.09.2022 at 03:00 A.M. Co-accused Laxman Dass, who has also attributed danda blow to the deceased, has been granted regular bail vide order dated 14.01.2026, Annexure P-3, after being in custody for 1 year and more than 1 month. Charges have been framed on 02.08.2025, however, out of 32 prosecution witnesses, only 1 namely Pappu Bavaria-alleged eye witness has been examined, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is involved in 2 more cases under IPC, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 10.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 1 month and 29 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having inflicted injuries to the deceased. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 1 month and 29 days; on bail in other cases; co-accused are on bail; charges were framed on 02.08.2025, however, 31 more prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) T