Talwinder Singh Alias Happy v. State Of Haryana And Another

   


    


  

 !

"# $!%&'&"() *+ + 

,-&($!.

&(/0 223 +++22!,,( 4!.'5'

  !

"# .3( ($ (" 0!.

+++!'2"($!( '

)  67 + 
   

 
 
 
  







 






!

"""

 8 +

 #

$


 
%
 

 
#&'

 
( 


$ %
) 

 *

#+,+




   
%


 - -


  #+ ./ !.!0
 
%

(

 
  
 
1-
2  


$ 
(
 

    

   

%

  
 
%
 3

 
&,/

4 

 




  
!.!/

- 

- 
%


 
 -


256 
.#7
 
!# .# !.!0
- 

 
##0
##,)#*
#+. #+#)!*
#+#)/*

4 



  
!.!/

 
/)#*)*
/)#*

 )*

/)!*) *



#+,+

 
 
 

 
8  
    
%
 3 
!

4 
 
 




  

 
  

3 
256


- 


% 


3

%3 
%

3


 
 -
- -
 

!# .# !.!0  
 

 
 -

 3

  -
 


 

 



3 

 
 -
%
 3


 3

 
 



 
 

 

 


 
 -
 -


 

 3




 % 

(33 
 
 



 

#+ .# !.!0
$ 



 
'






 

3







 


3



 
 
  
 

3
9 
 -





!



 3

 
 
%


-
 



3


   -
$




 

3  
:




-  


256
 
 -



$



3


'



 

 
 #, .!

!.!0
$

- 


 
 3

3  -
 
3


 3
;

 
/)#*)*
 /)!*) *



#+,+



5 

  



-



'



  -



 33  

3 


 
3

  
 - 

- 
%


%

 



(
 
 
%  3 
 

 
#+ ./ !.!0

3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the

impugned order dated 19.03.2025 is liable to be set aside as while passing the same, the learned Court concerned ignored the fact that the appellant was in custody since long. It was a case of free fight as both the parties sustained injuries. It is a case of version and cross version as an FIR No. 18 dated 22.01.2025 has been registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(2) and 191(3) of BNS, 2023 on the basis of the statement of the appellant against the members of the complainant party. Co-accused Gurjant Singh and Jagsir Singh, whose case is on similar footing, have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, the appellant too deserves to be extended the same benefit. No purpose would be served by detaining him into custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the appeal deserves to be accepted and the appellant deserves to be released on bail.

4.

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2/complainant.

5.

Written response has been filed by respondent No. 1-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of allegations as levelled against the appellant, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

6.

The rival contentions of both the parties have been given due consideration.

7.

The appellant is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof is alleged to have caused simple as well as grievous injuries to them. A cross case bearing FIR No. 18 has, however, been registered on the

9 basis of the statement of the appellant against the complainant party. The appellant is in custody since 18.02.2025. The investigation stands completed. Trial would take time to conclude. It is a case of version and cross version. Injuries have been sustained by the members of the party of the appellants also.  -



 

- 






 

 
  




  

 3 


 
5
3


 
 
 
 


%

%
 -
 3


 3

 - 



 
$
3-





$




%
 

- 
%


% 

   -
 <
%


   





(<8

 


,

5

3 
 
 

% 
3 
 %

 



  -




 3
 

% 


: 

 


3 


 

*+ + 

(MANISHA BATRA)


JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No