Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.162 dated 14.12.2024, registered at Police Station Doraha, District Khanna, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2), 324(2) and 3(5) BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 10 months. He alleges false implication. As per the allegations, he has inflicted a single blow on the non-

vital part. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR. Co-accused, Chirag has since been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2016, after being in custody for 8 months and 10 days. The petitioner has a 3-month-old daughter, who had undergone surgery of her right kidney and is still undergoing treatment, medical record has been referred to as Annexure A-1. Charges have been framed on 27.10.2025, however none out of 13 PWs has been examined. He is involved in 2 more cases wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 11.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 9 months and 25 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the arm and he is a habitual offender. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being on bail in other cases; co-accused having been released on bail and his daughter is undergoing treatment.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 9 months and 25 days; on bail in other cases; co-accused is on bail; charges stand framed on 27.10.2025; prosecution evidence has to commence; in all there are 18 PWs; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by