Vikas v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 Vikas .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate;

Mr. R. K. Poonia, Advocate;

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.261, dated 21.05.2023, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 323, 452, 506, 325 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa, Haryana. 2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Pala Ram. It was alleged that on 16.05.2023, at about 09/09:30 PM, one Dula Ram, Ganesh, Richhpal, Vishal, Vikas (petitioner), Hardeep and Happy in connivance with each other attacked complainant's nephew-Ramsharan with sticks and rods. It was further alleged that on the same day, a second attack was launched by Vishal, Vikas (petitioner), Hardeep, Happy,

-2Virender, Pawan, Chhinda, Rajat, Alisher and some other persons accompanying Alisher, upon the complainant, his brother-Mansa Ram and his nephew-Ramsharan. It was also alleged that on 23.05.2023, Mansa Ram (injured) succumbed to the injuries. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2024. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of the charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.04.2026. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, on the basis of parity with that of coaccused, namely, Kuldeep @ Babbal and Happy. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in CRM-M66159-2025 and CRM-M-3597-2026 dated 16.03.2026 whereby coaccused of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep @ Babbal and Happy have been granted the concession of regular bail. He has submitted that case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, who have been granted bail by this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 04.11.2024. He has thus, submitted that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as case of the

-3petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the State has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of co-accused, namely, Kuldeep @ Babbal and Happy, who have been granted bail by this Court. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 04.11.2024. Admittedly, co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep @ Babbal and Happy have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated16.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-66159-2025 and CRM-M-3597-2026. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 05 months and 23 days as on 27.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently 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 petitioners succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail on the basis of parity.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed and the

-4petitioner 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 cases.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) 29.04.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No