Harvinder Singh @ Harwinder Singh @ Kaka v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (121+208) CRM-M-14772-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 HARVINDER SINGH @ HARWINDER SINGH @ KAKA ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) CRM-15520-2026
!!
1.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.302 dated 06.07.2023 under Sections 147, 148, 216, 307, 323, 325, 341, 354-B and 506 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC (while Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 was dropped at the time of framing charge on 28.03.2024), registered at Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa. 2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of xxxx wife of Tarsem Singh, caste Majbi Sikh, resident of village Bhamboor, aged about 45 years, Mobile No. 98123 92850. Stated that, I am residing at the aforementioned address and a household lady. On 05.07.2023 at about 9 O'clock my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh has gone to bring
grocery items from the Grocery Shop in the village. Mundri son of Devi Lai, Angrej Singh son of Ruldu Ram, Balraj son of Chinder Pal, Tony son of chadta Singh, Jinder son of Miyan, Mammu son of Chinda Singh, Kakka son of Jamail Singh, Mandu son of Kamail Singh, Ranjit son of Jagdish Kamboj and Baljeet son of Hardev Singh all residents of Bhamboor armed with dandas, lathis and sharp edged weapon were already present on the shop of Hanshu. They had come in the car of Ranjit Kamboj. When my brother in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh reached near the shop of Hansu, all of them started abusing him and when my brother-in-law (Devar) started moving back to his house, they obstructed the passage of my brother-lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons.
On hearing the noise, I and my son Manohar son of Tarsem Singh went to rescue Kripal Singh then all of them also caused injuries to my son Manohar with danda and sharp edged weapons and gave fist and slaps to me. Mandu son of Karnail Singh was carrying a pistol which was seen by me. When I raised alarm, several people of the village reached at the spot. Deepa son of Kaur Singh also gave slaps to me. All the assailants, on seeing several people of the village reaching at the spot, fled away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons and while going they extended threats to kill us on the next available opportunity. After arranging the conveyance, I along with my family members shifted my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh and my son Manohar to Govt.
Hospital, Sirsa where the doctor, after giving first aid to my brother-in-law (Devar) and my son, issued their MLRS from where they were referred to higher centre. Now my brother-in-law (Devar) Kripal Singh and my son Manohar have been admitted in City Health Care Hospital, Sirsa. Both are unconscious. You have come to the hospital. I have got my statement recorded to you. I have heard it and the same is correct. I have got my statement recorded in the presence of Tejvinder Singh. Action be taken against all of them. RTI xxxx."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a generic and omnibus statement made by the complainant. As per the allegations in the instant FIR, when the complainant's brother-in-law Kirpal Singh had gone to a grocery shop, he was allegedly abused and assaulted by the petitioner and other co-accused, who also caused injuries to the son of the complainant. However, a perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations with respect to the specific role of inflicting injuries has been attributed to co-accused, and not to the petitioner." #
!$ # # % & &
!($!)$)*
!($*)$)* !$$ )$)* )+$))$),-
& # #
) ,.#
%
"/- It is further submitted that there is no direct or substantial evidence on record that points towards the complicity of the petitioner, who has already undergone an actual custody of 02 years 06 months and 28 days. There is no other case registered against him.
4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years 06 months and 28 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 28.03.2024 and out of total 33 prosecution witnesses, 04 (i.e. the material witnesses) have been examined till date. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5.
Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
, 0 & &
%
#1 2'
% # #3
!
!
"
#
-%
#
#
# & )($+)$)*4
* ++
# %
.# # &
#
#
.#
#
) , # )( /
##
% % # ( 5# # # # # &
%
&
#
#
# # % #
&% #&
#
#
& #
#
#
## & #
6
# &&
#
&#
# #
#
# #
.#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
# # # &
#
&
%
.#&
)! #'
/
# # # &#
& #'
%# .# &
# #
& #
&
7
#
#
8 #8 2' !
"# $ % &'
( )%$ & %
* !$ &
#
9
& #
&
# & 9
:
#
#
' : &
#
3 ;
<.#
# #%
;
<.#
=:
#
;< ;
<.#
#
' #
;
%<.#
#
# ## # ##
;%< .#
#
#
9
# # &#
#'
# #% !! / # # %
#
%
!) /
#%
# % #
#
&
;<
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 23, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No