Robin Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1251+264 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Robin Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai and another ..... Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate and Mr. Ribhav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-6325-2025.

Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-23216-2025.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-23216-2025.

*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

By this order, I dispose of the above mentioned two petitions arising out of the same FIR.

2.

Present petitions have been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.429, dated

-208.12.2024, under Sections 110, 115, 126, 351(2), 61, 190, 191(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana.

3.

Succinctly the facts of the case are FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Gaurav Bagoria. It was alleged that on 04.12.2024 at around 11:00 p.m., he was celebrating a birthday of his friend, namely, Kunal. When all three, i.e. the complainant, Chetan and Lucky were returning on their bike, then suddenly 03 people riding on a white R-15 bike way laid them along with 20-30 companions. They were with muffled faces and thus he could not identify their faces. They started beating them. It was suspected that Deepu Thakur was the person, who was responsible for the same as 20 days ago, Talli Bavariya, Robin Tararpuriya and Pankaj Kalania had threatened him for beating. His friends, namely, Chetan and Lucky got him admitted in the Hospital.

The request was made to take the legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, co-accused, namely, Jeetu was arrested and he made his disclosure statement on 13.12.2024 wherein he disclosed about the complicity of all three petitioners and other coaccused. Thus the petitioners were arrayed as an accused in the present case and resultantly, they were arrested on 17.12.2024 and 30.03.2025, respectively. The petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari praying for the grant of bail.

-3petitioners vide orders dated 02.01.2025 and 08.04.2025, respectively. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present petitions praying for the grant of regular bail. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners were neither named in the FIR nor they have been attributed any specific role. They have submitted that on due deliberations, the petitioners have been implicated in the present cases. They have submitted that the petitioners have not been alleged any specific injuries. They have submitted that the ocular version is not even medically corroborated. It is submitted that even otherwise the head injury was declared to be simple and thus, the offence under Section 110 of BNS (Section 308 IPC) is not even prima facie made out in the present case.

They have submitted that time and again the trial Court has been issuing bailable warrants of the complainant but he is intentionally not appearing before the learned trial Court so as to prolong the incarceration of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CRM-M-23216-2025 has submitted that the complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioners, namely, Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai and Tushar @ Monu. They have submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted regular bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the compromise has arrived at only with petitioners, namely, Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai and Tushar @ Monu and not with the petitioner, namely, Robin Singh. He is not able to answer as to why the complainant is not appearing before the learned trial Court despite the issuance of the

-4bailable warrants.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by counsels for the petitioners. He has submitted that the offence is non compoundable and thus, the compromise as alleged cannot be taken into consideration. He has submitted that during the investigation, complicity of the petitioners were duly established. He has submitted that the investigation already stands complete, the challan has been presented and on framing of the charges, now the case is fixed for examination of the complainant, however the complainant could not be examined till date. He has produced custody certificates of all the petitioners today in the Court and the same are taken on record. He has submitted that petitioner, Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai is not involved in any other case whereas the petitioner, namely, Robin Singh is involved in one more case, however he is on bail in that case. 7.

Heard.

8.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that that the petitioners were named in the FIR, however their complicity was surfaced during the investigation, i.e. on the disclosure statement of co-accused, Jeetu, which was recorded on 13.12.2024. The compromise as alleged is of no consequences at this stage. The Court is to see the case on the merits. It is undisputed fact that the petitioners were arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement. Investigation already stands complete. Custody certificate produced would show that petitioner, namely, Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai has completed incarceration of 03 months and 29 days and the petitioner

-5namely, Robin Singh has completed incarceration of 07 months and 10 days as on 28.07.2025. It further shows that the petitioner, namely, Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai is not involved in any other case whereas the petitioner, namely, Robin Singh is involved in one more case, however he is on bail in that case.

9.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

10.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Jag Rattan @ Papla Bhai, Tushar @ Monu and Robin Singh are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 29.07.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No