Ajay v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 29.05.2025 AJAY ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh, A.A.G. Haryana.

***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 28.08.2024 191(3), 190, 115, 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) Bharatiya Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 no. 2), Mo 2.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that neither any specific overt act nor any injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and is in custody since 29.08.2024 and after the completion of

-2investigation, challan has been presented in Court and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Thus, prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the reply filed by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence and he has been identified by the complainant in the identification parade to be one of the assailants, as such, prays for dismissal of the petition.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the Police has relied upon the identification parade in which the complainant has identified the petitioner vide Annexure R-4 annexed with the reply. A perusal of the reply would reveal that the petitioner is alleged to have given kick blows and abuses and this is the only role attributed to the petitioner in the entire occurrence. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and is in custody since 29.08.2024 and after the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in Court, wherein the prosecution has cited 23 witnesses, however, only 11 witnesses have been examined till date. The criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.

6.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on

-3bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 7.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

8.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 29.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No