IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 17.02.2025 Pronounced on: 28.02.2025 Mohit @ Mohit Dalal ...Pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, For the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner.

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Sta0on Sec0ons

378 11.12.2024 Badli, Bahadurgarh, 190, 193(3), 115, 126, 287, 351(3), Dis1. Jhajjar 110, 117(2) of BNS and Sec(cid:14)ons (Haryana) 25/54/59 of Arms Act

1. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap(cid:14)oned above has come up before this Court under Sec(cid:14)on 482 of Bhara(cid:14)ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an(cid:14)cipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts of the case are being taken from translated copy of FIR annexed with bail pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows:

“To SHO sahab, Police Sta(cid:19)on Badli. Sir, I request that I Devendra S/o Ramesh, is resident of village Jakhoda, district Jhajjar and doing the work of agriculture. We are two brothers. I am the elder one and the younger one is Ravindra. On 10.12.2024, Mohit S/o Ramesh of village Jakhoda from our village was scheduled to get married in village Badli. I and my brother Ravindra le. for Badli in our respec(cid:19)ve vehicles at around 7 in the evening for the wedding. We reached the wedding at around 7:45, there some quarrel had taken place between the boys of the village. Everyone was pacified and sent back home. Ravindra had also le. the wedding venue in his vehicle, in the mean(cid:19)me four-five vehicles came and blocked the way by stopping in front of Ravindra's vehicle and Ravindra was alighted from the car. Mohit S/o Jogendra from my own village fired three shots in the air. Along with Mohit, Suraj, Mohit, Rakesh, Golu S/o Leela, Mohit Lathar village Goyala Kalan and 15 to 20 other boys a;acked Ravindra with s(cid:19)cks. They said that Ravindra be killed. Their nephew Golu is also included in this. They have inflicted many injuries to Ravindra. Then somehow by intervening, Ravindra was brought to Badli Golden Global Hospital. From there he was brought to Sanjeevani Hospital Bahadurgarh. Here, a.er wai(cid:19)ng, an applica(cid:19)on has been submi;ed that legal ac(cid:19)on should be taken against all of them.”

4. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi(cid:14)ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on would cause an irreversible injus(cid:14)ce to the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner and his family and refer para No. 6 of the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on which reads as follows:-

“6. That it is relevant to submit that the injured was taken to a private hospital for treatment and not in the government hospital inten(cid:19)onally by the complainant party. Moreover the complainant party disclosed to the doctor that the injured received injuries by some unknown persons and the doctor has also men(cid:19)oned that the injured was heavily drunk when he was brought in the hospital. Some scuffle has taken place between the residents of the village in the marriage and the pe(cid:19)(cid:19)oner has falsely being implicated in the FIR.”

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail based on instruc(cid:14)ons. Complainant also opposes the bail.

REASONING:

6. A scuffle has taken place between the villagers in a marriage and allega(cid:14)ons against the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner are that he has fired three gun shots in the air. However, no bullet injury is there and no injury has been a1ributed to him.

7. Pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on should not be a replica of post-convic(cid:14)on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu(cid:14)on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that sta