Sanjay v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 01.05.2026 SANJAY ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vishal Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana.

*** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023(erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.), in case FIR No. 244 dated 05.11.2025, registered under Sections 109(1) and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding Sections 307 and 34 of IPC), during investigation Section 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, added (Corresponding to Section 326 IPC) at Police Station Industrial Area, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani (Annexure P-1).

2.

The case of the prosecution is that co-accused Jai Dhillon @ Commando, along with his associates, was travelling in a car when an altercation took place between them and the complainant. It is alleged that they exchanged heated words, and thereafter, co-accused Jai Dhillon @ Commando, who was driving the vehicle, intentionally struck the complainant with the car, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case while no specific act has been attributed to him. It is submitted that neither any injury nor any motive has been attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was sitting in the car being driven by co-accused. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 03 days and is not involved in any other case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as challan is yet to be presented. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On the asking of this Court, Dr. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 03 days. He, upon instructions, submits that challan is yet to be presented.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 03 days, he is not involved in any other case and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as challan is yet to be presented, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

-38.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) May 01, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No