The court granted regular bail to the petitioner because the serious charge of attempt to murder was deleted, only one injury was attributed to him, and co-accused had already been granted bail.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J . (Oral)

1. This is the 1st petition under Section 483 BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No.252 dated 28.08.2025, under Sections 109(1), 115, 126, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) and 61 of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 307, 323, 341, 149, 148, 452, 506 and 120-B IPC), challan presented under Sections 3(5), 126(2), 115(2), 333, 61(2), 351(3), 238(1), 117(2) and 110 BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 34, 341, 323, 452, 120-B, 506, 201, 325 and 308 IPC), registered at Police Station Gadpuri, District Palwal, Haryana.

2. The case, as borne out from the record, is that on the intervening night of 26/27.08.2025, the complainant and his brother were allegedly attacked by the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons, armed with weapons such as hammers, iron rods, pistols and axes, came in vehicles, intercepted the complainant and his brother, and inflicted injuries upon them. The complainant has specifically named the petitioner and attributed a role to him in the occurrence, alleging that he was part of the group which caused injuries. It is further alleged that the accused persons had previous enmity with the complainant and had earlier also quarreled with them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that only one injury is attributed to the petitioner, that too on the left leg with a hammer, attracting the offence under Section 325 IPC. It is further contended that the said injury has been declared as grievous in nature. Learned counsel submits that co-accused Sandeep Singh and Bhola have already been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. It is also argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last about six months and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time; therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Roshan Lal Saini, who has put in appearance. It is contended that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is, however, admitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC was initially invoked but the same has been deleted during investigation and now the offence under Section 325 IPC remains. It is further contended that although only one injury has been attributed to the petitioner, the same has been declared as grievous in nature as it resulted into fracture, and that all the accused persons had jointly caused injuries to the complainant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Considering the fact that only one injury is attributed to the petitioner attracting the offence under Section 325 IPC, which is bailable in nature, and that the offence under Section 307 IPC (corresponding Section 109(1) BNS) has already been deleted, as well as the fact that co-accused Sandeep Singh and Bhola have already been granted bail, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about six months and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.