Mohit v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-22555-2026 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22555-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 23.04.2026 MOHIT ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking grant of interim regular bail for a period of six weeks to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.340 dated 19.11.2025 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2) and 324(6) of BNS registered at Police Station Sadar Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, Haryana, to look after his pregnant wife. 2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2025, the son of the complainant, namely, Ashish had a quarrel with accused Sunil, Mohit (the present petitioner) and other persons. It is alleged that the accused persons stopped the vehicle of Ashish and caused multiple injuries to him with sharp weapons with an intention to kill him. As per medical record, the complainant's son sustained as many as 16 injuries, some of which were serious in nature and succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment on 28.11.2025.

SONIA PURI 2026.04.28 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-22555-2026 (O&M) -23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the wife of the petitioner is expecting delivery of their child on 02.05.2026, and his wife is suffering from various ailments during her late stage of pregnancy, and at this stage, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for emotional, physical and financial support. 4.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there are other members in petitioner's family to look after his wife. 5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there are other family members to look after the wife of the petitioner, hence, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and the present petition is hereby dismissed.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 23.04.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO SONIA PURI 2026.04.28 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document