In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

217 Date of Decision:- 13.02.2026 Sohan @ Sonu … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Kartik Khicher, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant A.G., Haryana. Mr. Gyan Parkash Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. By way of filing the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the appellant is seeking regular bail in FIR No.246 dated 16.10.2025, registered under Sections 110, 115, 190, 191(3), 324(4), 333, 351(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) (Section 190, 191(3) of BNS Act were deleted and Section 3(5) of BNS Act was added later on) at Police Station Uklana, District Hisar.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged that the appellant gave a ‘danda’ blow upon the head of the complainant, however, according to the medical opinion, the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. The appellant has been in custody since 17.10.2025. Investigation in the case has already been completed and charges have been framed. Thus, learned counsel prayed for the grant of regular bail to the appellant, as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

3. Custody certificate of the appellant filed by learned State counsel in Court, is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the appellant is in custody for the last more than 3 months and 25 days. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the appellant along with co-accused caused injuries to the complainant;

and one of the accused is still at large.

4. Mr. Gyan Parkash Saini, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the appellant has actively participated in the commission of offence and caused injures to the complainant. It is also submitted that if the appellant released from custody, he will certainly tamper with the prosecution evidence.

5. Heard.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, allegation against the present appellant that he along with co-accused caused injuries to the complainant, but as per medical opinion, the injuries are simple in nature; appellant has been in custody for the last about 3 months and 25 days; investigation has been completed and charged have been framed; the trial will take considerable time to conclude, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the appellant.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

( SUBHAS MEHLA )

13.02.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No