IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:11.02.2026 Ajay @ Ajay Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. 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.221, dated 20.04.2025, registered under Sections 190, 191(3), 110, 115, 117(2), 126, 351(3) and 61 of the BNS, at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Mahender Singh on 20.04.2025, alleging therein that on the evening of 19.04.2025, he along with his son Lovish and driver Kuldeep was working in the fields of Omi Lal with a tractor, when 15-20 youths riding on 4-5 bikes reached there. By forming an unlawful assembly and after making exhortations, they opened an assault upon the petitioner and his son, forcibly stopped their tractor and extended injuries on their person with their respective weapons. Both of them were seriously injured. On clamour being raised, assailants had fled away. His son had become unconscious and was rushed to the hospital. On regaining consciousness, he disclosed that accused Akrish and Prince, who were having a grudge against him from sometime along with their accomplices, were involved in the occurrence. Investigation proceedings were initiated.

3. During the course of investigation, accused Akrish was arrested. On the basis of his disclosure statement, accused Azad was nominated as additional accused and was arrested. He too suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as such and was arrested on 11.05.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by saying that he stood guard at the time of occurrence, whereas the other assailants had opened assault upon the victims. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 11.05.2025. Investigation now stands completed. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. He is on bail in another case as registered against him. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Most of the accused have since been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. With these broad submissions, it is, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2025. No specific overt act or injury on the person of the victim has been attributed to him nor he is alleged to have used any weapon at the time of occurrence. The allegations against him are that he stood guard at the time of occurrence. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of the subject offences by the petitioner and especially point out his vicarious liability in the crime. However, he is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. Obviously, there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. As such, no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial and it ca