IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10^th February, 2026 Bikesh @ Tinu @ Tinu Jaat ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Zorawar S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 312 dated 05.11.2025 registered under Sections 110, 111(3), 115(2), 117(2), 190, 191(3), 308(4) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Section 61(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Suraj Pal, alleging that on the night of 03.11.2025, he was closing his shop, when the petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused, reached there on two vehicles being armed with weapons and opened an assault upon the complainant, thereby causing injuries to him with intent to kill. After extending threats to the complainant, they had fled away. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2025. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by saying that he was driving one of the vehicles which was used for commission of the subject offences. The co-accused were arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 11.11.2025. No recovery has been effected from him. No specific injury or overt act has been attributed to him. The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. His case is on better footing. As such, he too deserves to be released on bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Custody certificate and status report have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was an active participant of unlawful assembly with the co-accused and had caused several injuries on the person of the victim. There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the complainant and other material witnesses or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2025. He is not required for further investigation as challan has been filed. Though he was named in the FIR but no specific overt act of causing injuries to the complainant has been attributed to him. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude. As such, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. It is also well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentence. Keeping in view the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]

JUDGE

10^th February, 2026 Parveen Sharma