Yuvraj v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 Yuvraj ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate Mr. Navjyot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for granting him regular bail in case FIR No.523 dated 16.11.2024 under Sections 110, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 (Section 117(2) and 238 of BNS, 2023 added later on) registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram.

3.

Succinctly, facts of the case are that in the FIR, it was alleged that the complainant Krishan and his friend Ajit were having tea at a tea stall at Old Delhi road. After having tea, they complained to the tea stall owner that tea was not good, however, on hearing the same, he got furiated and called 78 persons, who were armed with dandas and they all started giving beatings to them with dandas, stones and iron stool. Two of the boys out of the assailants were Sahil and Yuvraj as both were taking each others names. The complainant received injuries on his head and became unconscious.

Thereafter, he was shifted to PGIMER, Rohtak. A request was made to take legal action. On the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2025. The injured was medico-legally examined. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.12.2024. Learned counsel submits that co-accused Sahil Tiwari @ Sahil Raja Babu has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 in CRM-M-11205-2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

4.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner has not been attributed any specific injury in the FIR in question. It is also submitted that even perusal of the MLR reveals that complainant has suffered five injuries out of which injury No.1, which was lacerated wound, has been opined to be grievous injury and other four injuries were simple in nature. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner is behind bars for the last more than one year and has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that material witness i.e. complainant has already been examined and thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence has been recovered and the petitioner was seen to be part of the unlawful assembly and thus, his complicity has been duly established. He submits that the prosecution version is duly corroborated with the medical version as the complainant has suffered five injuries. He, on instructions, submits that injured witness has already been examined and he has supported the prosecution case. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

6.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 16.11.2025. The co-accused Sahil Tiwari @ Sahil Raja Babu has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 in CRM-M-11205-2025. Custody certificate of petitioner would show that he has suffered incarceration of 01 year and 16 days as on 02.12.2025. It further reflects that he has no criminal antecedents. The material witness i.e. injured complainant has already been examined. Out of five injuries suffered by the complainant, as per MLR injury No.1 was opined to be grievous in nature and others were simple in nature. 7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for

the petitioner succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 9.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 04.12.2025 JUDGE sonia Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No