Aman v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-8372-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8372-2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 AMAN ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 178 dated 27.03.2024 under Sections 308,148,149,323,325 and 506 of IPC (Section 308 of IPC was deleted and Section 307 of IPC was added later on) registered at Police Station Industrial Sector 29 Panipat, District Panipat.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the co-accused have given injuries to Sonu and Neer which amounted to be dangerous to life.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Moreover, PW-1 Rohit, who is said to be an eye-witness, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody Renu Rawat 2025.07.10 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-8372-2025 -2certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 01 year 03 months and 03 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He fairly admits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024 and he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that out of 22 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined so far. 6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for 01 year 03 months and 03 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 09.07.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.07.10 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document