IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 Lovekesh @ Toni ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.206 dated 01.12.2025 registered under Sections 115, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Rampura, District Rewari.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with co-accused pointed pistol on the forehead of the complainant, threatened him and caused injuries to him. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that if the prosecution version is taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and the only allegation against him is that he put the pistol on the forehead of the complainant. He further argued that in fact, it is a case of no injury and therefore, Section 115 of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Further, co-accused Sonu @ Maharaj and Manoj Kumar have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court, vide orders dated 17.12.2025 and 23.12.2025, respectively. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and nothing is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submitted that there are total 09 prosecution witnesses and out of which, only 03 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and while referring to status report already filed in the matter, she has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months; he has clean antecedents; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 09 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial, which is proceeding at snail’s pace and the same will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the sati