Sikandar v. State Of Haryana
214 (2 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16379-2026 Sikander ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent Sunil alias Sonu ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent Decided on: 02.07.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present:
Mr. G.S. Madaan, Advocate, Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate and Mr. Hiteshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-16379-2026) Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-10708-2026) Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1.
By way of this common order, both the above-mentioned petitions are being decided together as they arise out of the same FIR and common allegations. 2.
Petitioner - Sikander (in CRM-M-16379-2026) has filed instant first bail petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a
criminal case arising out of FIR No. 178, dated 03.11.2025 registered under Sections 115, 126, 140(3), 140(4), 190, 191(3), 351(2) BNS (Sections 323, 339, 364, 367, 149, 148, 506 IPC) at Police Station Titram, District Kaithal, Haryana. 3.
Petitioner - Sunil alias Sonu (in CRM-M-10708-2026) has filed instant third bail petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 178, dated 03.11.2025 registered under Sections 115, 126, 140(3), 140(4), 190, 191(3), 351(2) BNS at Police Station Titram, District Kaithal, Haryana. 4.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-107082026), in para No. 2, role of the accused persons was recorded, which is as follows:
"2.
As per allegations, on 03.11.2025, when injured/complainant - Sachin was travelling on a motorcycle along with his friend - Mohit, at about 11:00 PM, one car coming from the front side, occupied by persons armed with weapons, rammed into the motorcycle. Thereafter, injuries were caused to the complainant. There are total five accused, namely, (i) Sikander, (ii) Sonu, (iii) Anil, (iv) Monty, and (v) Ajay Valmiki.
They jointly inflicted stick and wooden rod (binda/danda) blows upon the injured/complainant - Sachin. As per the description given in the FIR, accused - Sikander gave a wooden blow on the right leg, accused - Monty gave a rod blow on the right arm, accused - Anil gave a stick blow on the right leg and thereafter accused/petitioner herein - Sunil @ Sonu also gave a stick blow on the right leg. The injured/complainant - Sachin, suffered three grievous injuries, including fracture in the leg."
5.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have produced photocopy of the statement dated 01.07.2026 of injured-Sachin @ Chinna and same is taken on record. Thus, argue that the star witness i.e. injured since has been examined and there is no specific injury dangerous to the life, caused by any of the accused and no meaningful purpose would be served by continuing the detention of the petitioners inside jail, thus, pray for grant of bail. 6.
On the other hand, learned State counsel also does not dispute the factum of recording of the statement of injured witness-Sachin @ Chinna before the trial Court. However, submits that looking at the deposition of the injured, no case for bail is made out because clearly, the role has been assigned qua both the petitioners herein, by the said witness. He also submits that apart this petitionerSikander is facing four other criminal cases and accused-Sunil @ Sonu is facing one more case against him, thus, submits that both the petitions be dismissed. 7.
I have considered the submissions addressed by respective counsel for the parties and gone through the statement of the witness Sachin @ Chinna (PW-1) and with their able assistance gone through the record. 8.
As per the deposition in the Court, complainant has clearly stated that the accused Sikander and Sunil @ Sonu were two out of total five accused, who came at the spot of incident in i-10 Car.
Accused-Sikander hit the injured with stick (danda) on his right leg and accused Sunil @ Sonu alongwith other accused caused further injuries, when injured was lying there.
In the cross-examination of injured it has also been stated that no criminal case is there between him (injured) and accused Sunil @ Sonu, except the instant one. Further, he has stated that as per video so made, no one amongst Sunil
@ Sonu and Sikander is causing any injury to him. Veracity of the aforementioned statements and the role assigned to the accused need not to be commented upon by this Court in the proceedings of the instant bail petitions. However, by noticing the same, this Court is Prima facie of the view that the trial Court would appreciate the evidence in its true perspective, after leading of the complete prosecution evidence.
9.
Considering all the aforementioned aspects and the facts that the petitioner(s) are inside jail since more than period of 07 months and 28 days and none of the injury is dangerous to life and material witness i.e. injured-Sachin @ Chinna has already been examined, petitioners can not be detained inside jail for an indefinite period.
10.
Consequently, the present petitions are allowed. Petitioners namely, Sikander (in CRM-M-16379-2026) and Sunil alias Sonu (in CRM-M-10708-2026) are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 11.
However, it is clarified that in case there is any kind of interference or delay caused by the petitioner(s) the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
12.
Both the petitions stand disposed of.
13.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. 02.07.2026 reena (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No