Arun v. State Of Haryana And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.05.2026 ARUN ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS Present:- Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the appellant. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2018) against the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind whereby regular bail of the appellant was dismissed in FIR No. 233 dated 30.06.2021 under Sections 148,149,323,452,506 of IPC (corresponding Sections 191(3), 190,115(2), 333, 351 of BNS 2023) and Section 302 of IPC corresponding Section 103 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Safidon District Jind. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant along with his co-accused committed house trespass by entering the house of the deceased

-2namely Ishwar and caused multiple grievous injuries to him with gandas, iron rods etc resulting into his death.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that provisions of SC/ST Act are not applicable on the appellant as he himself belongs to SC community and offence under SC/ST Act committed by him. He further submits that the appellant is in custody since 11.07.2021. It is further submitted that co-accused Ankit has already been granted concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in CRA-S-1985-2025.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG,Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the appellant on the ground that gandasi used by the appellant in the commission of offence has been recovered. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the appellant is in custody for the last more than 04 years 09 months and 20 days and is not involved in any other case. She further submits that out of 31 cited prosecution witnesses 20 have been examined so far. 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 fact that the appellant is in custody for the last more

-3than 04 years 09 months and 20 days; he is not involved in any other case; out of 31 cited prosecution witnesses 20 have been examined so far and that the trial is likely to take a long time, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the appellant during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the appellant would not serve the ends of justice. 8.

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

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the appellant is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 04.05.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No