Sushil @ Sheela v. State Of Haryana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Decided on: 19.11.2025
......Petitioner Versus
......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present:
**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)
! " !#
$%% %
%&'() # *+,-+-
-+./ +- 0
'"
1,+ % " $ 2 3 - /
0 .
4 .
&'(0 %
0 .+,.- # +"
(0 % 0 0% % 0 .( %0 0 .( $ .2
35
..0 ' 0 %% 0 0
-2- (0 0$%' % 0
% .
% /
6 0 .
2
3 ./7
% 0 ..0
% 2.
3 % 2 .
3
7
.
.
. % 0 0 $ 80 0 ..0 ' .
. 9
%
$ : .0
";'( $ 0 :
%%
-+./ '" 1,+
0 .
. 0 80 % % .
0 0 % 8
87 $2 < ".-3
0 %
4 0 0 0
0
&'( % 0
-3-
4
2 < ".
3
% 0 2 3 $
= &'(
% % ' 0
<
0
0
) * >
% ;80
.
%
0 %
%0 2.
3
0 0
%0
.
, # Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation against present petitioner is for criminal conspiracy and common intention; material witness(es) already examined; there is no apprehension that the petitioner would tamper with prosecution evidence; there is discrepancy in the prosecution version qua case of present petitioner as the ruqa initially sent by the doctor wherein it was mentioned as a case of road side accident; there is a delay in giving the information to the police; Anjali who shifted the deceased to the hospital in the initial ruqa (Annexure P-2) has not been cited as witness and no statement of hers
-4- has been recorded, the case of the prosecution qua present petitioner is of criminal conspiracy and common intention; hence, the evidence of prosecution regarding common intention is to be meticulously appreciated by the trial Court at an appropriate stage, after adducing evidence from both the parties.
T
*+,-+- ? 0
<
? % % .
0 0
%0
%
?
0
?0 %
this Court finds merits in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
8.
The instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
9.
Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case.
(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 19.11.2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:
YES/NO