Virender @ Veera v. State Of Haryana

260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.05.2026 VIRENDER @ VEERA ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Tarun Kumar Parashar, Advocate and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Shailender Singh Momi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Ambavta, DAG, Haryana.

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

By way of the present petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short - 'the BNSS'), the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.212 dated 07.06.2018, under Sections 323, 365, 379-B and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Dadri City, Haryana. 2.

In the present case, allegations qua the petitioner are that on 04.06.2018, he along with co-accused forcibly took the complainant behind Vardhman School assaulted him and gave beatings with danda blows. Further, the petitioner and co-accused snatched Rs.7,000/- from the complainant and during investigation, a danda along with an amount of Rs.200/- was recovered from the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:

i. In the present case, the petitioner was earlier granted the concession of regular bail on merits and he was regularly appearing before the trial Court;

ii. On 23.09.2025, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the trial court and consequently, his bail was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants were issued qua him;

iii. On 24.03.2026, the bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri; and iv. The petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Mahender Singh, opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the following grounds: i. The petitioner misused the concession of bail granted by the trial court; and ii. The petitioner is not having clean and clear antecedents and is also involved in other cases.

5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds merit in the present petition for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:

i.

The petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of regular bail on merits and was regularly appearing before the trial Court;

ii.

On 23.09.2025, owing to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the trial court, consequently, his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and his nonbailable warrants were issued; iii.

The petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months; and iv.

Trial will take sufficient time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any further period.

7.

Concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability of accused is to be decided after appreciating evidence adduced by both the parties. It is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 8.

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 bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The trial court is directed to impose such conditions, as it deems fit, to secure the presence of the petitioner.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) May 26, 2026 JUDGE Manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No