IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Harish ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Mohit, Ms. Pavitra, Mr. Sachin and Mr. Bharat, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant first petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0264 dated 30.04.2025 registered under Sections 115, 126, 3(5), 351(3) [Section 109(1) added later on] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana.

2. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the complaint of Rajesh, son of Om Parkash. It has been stated that on 28.04.2025, at about 10:00 p.m., when the complainant was present at his residence, the petitioner herein, along with the other co-accused, started unloading bricks in the street adjoining the complainant’s house. Upon the complainant questioning the said act, an altercation ensued between the parties. It is further stated that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, forcibly grabbed the complainant. During the course of the incident, co-accused Harish is stated to have inflicted injuries on the head of the complainant. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. Subsequently, upon obtaining medical opinion, the offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was added to the FIR.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that although four persons were initially named as accused in the FIR, during the course of investigation three of them were found to be innocent and were exonerated during the course of investigation. He thus submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that there has been a clear element of over-implication in the present case. It is contended that the opinion declaring the injury to be dangerous to life has not been obtained from a Government hospital, but from a private medical institution and that too after a delay of about 17 days from the date of the occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2025 and has already undergone an actual custody of more than 07 months. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time, inasmuch as only 01 out of the 14 prosecution witnesses cited has been examined so far.

4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the facts aforesaid, however, she contends that the injury attracting Section 109 BNS is attributed to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the respondent- complainant stands discharged and that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.

6. Taking into consideration the period of actual custody already undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the allegations levelled against him, his clean antecedents, as well as the present stage of the trial, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition.

7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

27.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

Sumit Gusain JUDGE