IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-05.02.2025 Paramjit @ Gauri ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate for the complainant.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a third petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.152 dated 25.09.2021 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 326, 427, 506, 307, and 302 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has been in custody since 27.09.2021, which is almost 3 years and 4 months and out of total 29 cited prosecution witnesses, 09 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further submitted that it is a case where the trial has been delayed because an application was filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused. He submitted that it is a case where, as per the allegations against the petitioner, he along with the co-accused had assaulted the injured and the deceased. As far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, even according to the prosecution, he inflicted a sword blow on the injured, namely Damanjit Singh. No role has been attributed to the petitioner with regard to the deceased, and the main accused who gave the blow to the deceased is already in custody.

3. Learned counsel also referred to the orders passed by this Court and also passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court whereby some of the other co-accused have already been granted the benefit of bail. He referred to Annexure P-3, whereby regular bail was granted by this Court to another co- accused, namely Daljit Singh @ Pinka and Kala @ Jagjit Singh, on the ground that they had given danda blows to one of the injured, namely Gurjeet Singh. He further referred to Annexure P-4, whereby bail was granted by this Court to another co-accused, namely Vikas Kumar @ Lalla on 14.10.2022, on the ground that he was a member of unlawful assembly and was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. Yet another co-accused, namely Vikramjeet Singh @ Happy, was granted the benefit of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.05.2023 vide Annexure P-5. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only at parity with the aforesaid co- accused but also entitled to the grant of regular bail because he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Besides the aspect of parity, he may also be considered for grant of regular bail on the ground of long custody, which is

3 years and 4 months.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that, insofar as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct. Out of total 29 cited prosecution witnesses, 09 have been examined and the aforesaid co-

accused have been granted regular bail. However, he submitted that so far as the role of the present petitioner is concerned, he had given a sword blow to one of the injured, namely Damanjit Singh and as a consequence of the same, his arm was cut. But so far as the deceased is concerned, the role has been attributed to another co-accused, who is already in custody and not to the present petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant stated that, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he is not at parity with the other co- accused who have been granted bail because the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he had given a sword blow on the injured. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not cause injury to the deceased person. He also submitted that three material witnesses are yet to be examined, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of regular bail.

6. I have heard the learned couns