IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 Decided on : 12.05.2026 Shyam Sunder . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG Haryana ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.197, dated 12.06.2021, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 342. 379-B, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after noticing of the facts, almost similarly situated co-accused, namely; Hansraj allegedly armed with rubber pipe, Surender and Chhinder, allegedly armed with dandas, have already been released on bail, vide common order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-23804-2023, titled as, “Surender and another v. State of Haryana” and CRM-M-35769-2024, titled as, “Hansraj v. State of Haryana”.

Further submits that since the role assigned to the petitioner is almost similar and taking note of all the relevant facts including the injuries, three of the accused (aforementioned) have already been released on bail, plea of bail of the petitioner be also treated on parity.

Besides, it is also noticeable that petitioner is inside jail since March, 2025 in the present case.

3. For reference, version of the prosecution, as culled out from paragraph No.4 of the order dated 07.11.2024 (P-4), reproduced in the case of Surender and another and Hansraj and thereupon noticed in the bail petition i.e. CRM-M-36281- 2025 titled as Hardayal Brahmin @ Hardayal Joshi vs. State of Haryana reads as under:-

“4. The prosecution agency in the instant case was set into motion on a complaint made by Mukesh Kumar alias Amit, wherein, he alleged that his brother Naresh alias Dholu, was confined by the petitioners and other co-accused in the house of Dharambir, and where, he was given merciless beatings, with the weapons carried in their hand, which results into as many as 15 injuries to the Naresh Kumar alias Dholu (since deceased), and thereafter, he died during treatment in the hospital. The motive which is alleged in the instant FIR, is that Naresh Kumar alias Dholu was alleged to have an illicit relation with the wife of Dharambir, co-accused non-applicant, and the deceased has also taken Rs 70,000/- from Dharambir as a loan, which he did not return. The relevant extract of the FIR (supra), which has been culled out by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, while declining the relief of regular bail reads as under:-

“As per prosecution version, complainant Mukesh Kumar alias Amit son of Balvir Singh Soni, got recorded his statement to the police alleging that his younger brother Naresh Kumar, who was unmarried, used to work as vegetable vendor in partnership with Dharambir (accused). On 12.06.2021 his brother Naresh Kumar went to the fields along with his mother Roshni Devi on the motorcycle of Dharambir Singh, for fetching green fodder for the cattle. The complainant further submitted that his mother Roshni Devi informed him that Naresh Kumar had received a telephonic call from Tannu (petitioner) wife of Dharambir, who called him at her house. Thereafter, Naresh Kumar, after leaving his mother at the field, went to the house of Tannu, where accused Dharamvir Singh, his wife Tannu, Shyam Sunder, Ramesh sons of Kalu Ram, Hans Raj son of Bala Ram, Dhann Raj son of Mani Ram, Surender son of Kalu Ram, Chhinder son of Lilu Ram, Sharwan Jakhar and Hardayal Brahaman, Kalia son of Om, residents of Chautala, were already present as per the conspiracy and they started thrashing Naresh Kumar at about 9/10-00 A.M. The complainant received a telephonic call from an unknown person that his brother Naresh Kumar had been tied in the house of Dharamvir and the above said persons were thrashing him. On receiving this information