IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 Date of decision: 09.09.2025 ROHIT ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate for Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station ROHIT 1 02.01.2021 302, 323, 34, Sadar Rewari

216 of IPC Rewari (Sections 148 and 149 of IPC were deleted during investigation and Sections 216 and 34 of IPC were added later on)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been in custody since 04.01.2021, amounting to a period of approximately 4 years and 8 months. Out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 09 have been examined till date, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.

3. While addressing the arguments on facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was lodged at the instance of Jaswant Singh (father of the deceased), who received information about the incident from the eye- witnesses, namely Suman Devi (mother of the deceased) and Mamta (wife of the deceased). As per the allegations contained in the FIR, accused persons—(1) Pawan, (2) Rohit (petitioner herein), (3) Rahul, (4) Nikhil, (5) Sahil, and (6)

Ashish, allegedly assaulted the deceased, Amit, using bricks, lathis, and dandas.

4. It is further submitted that after completion of the investigation, accused Pawan and Nikhil were found to be innocent and were accordingly placed in Column No. 2 of the final report. Counsel contends that case of the petitioner, as well as that of the remaining accused, cannot be distinguished from that of Nikhil and Sahil, as all were assigned a similar role in the commission of the alleged offence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the material witnesses, namely Suman Devi and Mamta, have already been examined as PW-9 and PW-8, respectively, on 14.05.2025. Although both witnesses have supported the prosecution’s case, counsel contends that role attributed to the petitioner in the FIR cannot be subsequently improved upon. However, the final determination of the petitioner’s role remains within the domain of the trial Court and is yet to be adjudicated at the final stage of the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the instant petition is the first case against the petitioner, as no other case of whatsoever nature has ever been registered against him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, it is relevant to point out that one of the co-accused, against whom charges have been framed under Section 216 of the IPC, has already been granted bail by this Court.

Since the allegation in the FIR is a common one, that the accused Pawan, Rohit (petitioner herein), Rahul, Nikhil, Sahil, and Ashish assaulted the complainant’s son with bricks, lathis, and danda, and since Ashish alias Ashu has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 in CRM-M- 10893-2025, the petitioner’s right to seek the concession of bail stands on equal footing. Therefore, on the principle of parity, he is also entitled to the same benefit.

8. On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 08.09.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has already been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitio