Parveen @ Pinni v. State Of Haryana And ANR

CRA-S-1796-2026 ::1:: (211)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1796-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 PARVEEN @ PINNI ... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present appeal has been preferred seeking grant of regular bail to the appellant in FIR No.415 dated 06.09.2022 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act, 1985 at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal. 2.

The counsel for the appellant contends that no specific injury has been attributed to the appellant in the FIR though he is said to be armed with a Binda stick used to assault the deceased. Subsequently, the complainantMohit has been examined as PW-2 and has not supported the case of the prosecution. As the appellant is in custody since 08.09.2022 but only 10 out of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso when two co-accused namely,

CRA-S-1796-2026 ::2:: Rajesh @ Anda @ Galwa @ Rajesh Kumar and Vikas @ Bhallu have been granted the concession of bail vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 11.05.2026 (Annexures P-4 & P-5).

4.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the appellant is a part of the unlawful assembly that inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. He, however, concedes that the complainantMohit has been examined as PW-2 and has not supported the prosecution case, that the appellant is in custody since 08.09.2022 but only 10 out of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and that two co-accused namely, Rajesh @ Anda @ Galwa @ Rajesh Kumar and Vikas @ Bhallu have been granted the concession of bail vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 11.05.2026 (Annexures P-4 & P-5).

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.

Admittedly, complainant-Mohit PW-2 has not supported the version of the prosecution. Whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to establish the culpability of the appellant shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. The appellant is stated to be in custody since 08.09.2022 but only 10 out of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the appellant is not required moreso when two co-accused namely, Rajesh @ Anda @ Galwa @ Rajesh Kumar and Vikas @ Bhallu have been granted the concession of bail vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 11.05.2026 (Annexures P-4 & P-5).

CRA-S-1796-2026 ::3:: 7.

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present appeal is allowed and the appellant-Parveen @ Pinni S/o Ramesh Chand is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE May 26, 2026 Jitesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No