Sohil And Another v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.233 Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 SOHIL AND ANOTHER

...Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 401 dated 29.09.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 307, 506 and 34 IPC) at Police Station Sector 13-17, Panipat, District Panipat.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.09.2025 at about 9:00 PM, the alleged occurrence took place in which the accused persons, including the present petitioners Sohil and Sarfaroj @ Tidda, allegedly inflicted injuries upon Salman and Meer Hasan. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Billo, wife of Salman, as well. The injury suffered by Salman was later declared dangerous to life, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC / Section 109(1) of the BNS.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana has accepted notice and opposed the present bail petition on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the injured Salman had suffered injuries which were declared dangerous to life. It is further submitted that three prosecution witnesses have already been declared hostile, though some witnesses are yet to be examined. It has also been pointed out that the petitioners are in custody for the last about four months and three days.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.

The injured Salman, who allegedly suffered the injury declared dangerous to life, appeared in the witness box as PW-3, however, he did not support the case of the prosecution and categorically stated that the petitioners are not the persons who caused injuries to him. Consequently, he was declared hostile.

8.

Similarly, the other injured Meer Hasan also did not support the prosecution version and specifically stated that the petitioners were not the persons who had caused injuries to him, and he was also declared hostile. 9.

Likewise, the third eyewitness Billo, wife of Salman, has also not supported the case of the prosecution and stated on similar lines that the petitioners were not the assailants. She too was declared hostile. Thus, all the

three material witnesses have already turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

10.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the material witnesses including both injured witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and also considering that the petitioners are in custody for the last about four months, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars any longer.

11.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners Sohil and Sarfaroj @ Tidda are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

12.

However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 16.03.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No