Somdutt @ Soma v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-28330-2026 and connected matters -1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28330-2026 Date of Decision:26.05.2026 Somdutt @ Soma
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(ii) CRM-M-28499-2026 Jaskaran Singh
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(iii) CRM-M-28674-2026 Harpreet Singh @ Bittu
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present:
Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate Mr. Lakhan Paul Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
*** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1.
This order shall dispose off three bail petitions i.e CRM-M-283302026 titled as "Somdutt @ Soma Vs. State of Haryana", CRM-M-28499-2026 titled as "Jaskaran Singh Vs. State of Haryana" and CRM-M-28674-2026 titled as "Harpreet Singh @ Bittu Vs. State of Haryana", whereby the petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail to them in case arising out of FIR No. 321, dated 19.08.2025, registered under Sections
CRM-M-28330-2026 and connected matters -2 110,115,126,190,191(2),351(2) of B.N.S, 2023 {308,323,339,149,147 and 506 of IPC} and under Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa and later added Section 117(2) of B.N.S, 2023 (325 IPC), whereas, Section 25 of Arms Act deleted, while filing the report under Section 193 of B.N.S.S, 2023.
2.
The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Lakhbinder Singh son of Ajmer Singh and the same has been reproduced below:- "Statement of Lakhbinder singh son of Ajmer singh resident of Mallekan aged about 37 years, Mobile No. 9068433000 stated that I am resident of above said address and is agriculturist, on 17.08.2025 at about 1/1:30 noon I was going to my home on my scooty No. RJ-49-SG-4438 aftertaking house hold goods and when I reached near the shop of Kuldeep battery wala then a Bolero camper vehicle came from behind having No.
CRM-M-28330-2026 and connected matters -3 said that let us finish the matter today by killing him, so many persons came on the spot on my raising alarm "mar diya-mar diya" and those persons openly announced that if some one taken him hospital then he will be killed and on seeing the so many persons gathering on the spot they fled in their vehicle with the weapons and while going all of them said that today you have escaped and will kill you in future, on hearing the noise Lakhwinder Singh, Block Samiti Member, Mallekan and Udaypal Bajwa Ex. Sarpach taken me to hospital after arranging the vehicle and I am undergoing treatment. Yesterday I was unable to give statement to you due to medicine effect.
Reason for enmity is that brother of Nirbhay was Sarpach of village in last plan and during that period an objectionable video of Ramandeep brother of Nirbahy was gone viral.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the petitioners were wrongly named in the FIR (Annexure P-2), without assigning any specific role to them. Even, the alleged occurrence had taken place on 17.08.2025 at about 01:00/01:30 P.M, whereas, F.I.R was registered by the police at 10:00 P.M on 19.08.2025 and the prosecution could not explain the delay of two days in the registration of the F.I.R in the present case. Moreover, the F.I.R was got registered by the complainant due to political rivalry in the village as admittedly Nirbhay Singh, co-accused remained Sarpanch of the village and even father of Nirbhay Singh had remained Sarpanch of the village twice, whereas, the complainant side belonged to a rival
CRM-M-28330-2026 and connected matters -4 political group of the village and after a delay of two days, several persons were implicated by assigning them false roles. Apart from that, all the injuries suffered by the injured in the present case were on non-vital parts of the body and the injured also stands discharged from the hospital long ago. Learned counsel further submits that even Nirbhay Singh, against whom the motive of causing injuries to the injured was alleged, has already been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court on 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners in the present case were arrested on 12.11.2025 and in custody for the last about six months. Moreover, the challan has been presented against the petitioners and even charge has been ordered to be framed by the Trial Court. However, out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far.
4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the ground that serious and specific allegations were levelled against the petitioners and the petitions are ordered to be dismissed by this Court. 5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6.
In the present case, the petitioners are stated to be in custody for the last more than six months and till date, the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners are in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or may abscond from the process of law. 7.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
CRM-M-28330-2026 and connected matters -5 petition(s) are allowed. The petitioner(s) are ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing their bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 26.05.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No