Lalit v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.05.2026 Lalit ..... Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present :

Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Mandeep Singh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1.

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 14-A of 'the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989', hereinafter being referred to as the 'SC and ST Act'. By virtue of instant appeal the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, hereinafter being referred to as impugned order, has been challenged vide impugned order, the bail application filed by the appellant has been dismissed in a case arising out of FIR No.879 dated 28.11.2025 under Sections 115, 117(2), 3(5), 351(3) and 238(c) of and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act, 1989, Police Station Sadar, District Hisar.

2.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of complainant 'Ashok Kumar', hereinafter being referred to as complainant only, who alleged that on

27.11.2025 at about 04:00 P.M. he along with Baljeet had purchased liquor from a liquor vend and was going home. As per complainant on the way four unknown persons, armed with iron rods, arrived in a Swift Dzire car and they assaulted him and inflicted injuries on his person. The appellant Lalit has been specifically accused of inflicting blows with an iron rod on right leg of the complainant. It was also stated by the complainant that the abovesaid assailants had also made caste-based remarks against them and thereafter, fled from the spot.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. The learned State Counsel has filed the status report and custody certificate. The same be taken on record.

4.

Mr. Mandeep Singh Lamba, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed Power of Attorney. The same, too, be taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant except the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act, all the other offences are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and that he has already suffered prolonged incarceration.

7.

The learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has controverted the abovementioned arguments. The

learned State Counsel while defending the impugned order has contended that in the present case there are serious allegations with regard to causing of grievous injuries on the person of complainant and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to bail. According to learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in view of gravity of offence, the appellant does not deserve the benefit of bail, and that the present appeal deserves dismissal. 8.

The record has been perused carefully.

9.

A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:- i) that the appellant is already in custody for a period of more than four months;

ii) that except the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST offences, allegedly committed by the appellant, are triable by Court of Judicial Magistrate;

iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences allegedly committed by the appellant are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years;

iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of appellant;

v) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that the detention of appellant in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

vii)

.

10.

With regard to fact situation of present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.

Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country.

Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case". 11.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

12.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

13.

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

14.

As a sequel to abovementioned observation, it is hereby observed that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside.

15.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the appellant shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.05.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No