Sandeep v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 Sandeep ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Rajinder Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.158 dated 07.06.2024, under Sections 323, 324, 34, 341, 506 IPC (Section 307 IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind.

2.

As per the facts of the case, the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Rajat Kumar. It was alleged that on 05.06.2024 at about 10:00 PM, four boys, namely, Sandeep (petitioner), Kamal, Hardeep and one unknown person, came to his house and opened attack on him with swords and gandasas. Sandeep gave two sword blows on the left leg of the complainant and Kamal gave gandasa blow on his right leg and Hardeep and the other boy gave kick and fist blows to him. On reaching of his uncle's son and other people, they all fled away from there and threatened to kill the complainant. The injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Safidon from where, he was referred to PGI Khanpur. It was alleged that due to past grudge involving Sandeep and his maternal uncle's daughter, he was beaten by them. Request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR,

-2the investigation commenced and the petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 09.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-511492024 and CRM-M-57524-2025, however, the same were dismissed vide orders dated 23.10.2024 and 19.01.2026. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present third petition.

3.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner had been alleged to have given sword blow on the leg of the complainant-injured, namely, Rajat Kumar. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 26.06.2024 and learned trial Court time and again issued not only bailable warrants, but also nonbailable warrants to secure the presence of the complainant, but the complainant is intentionally not appearing before the trial Court only to prolong the incarceration of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is behind the bars from the last about two years. To buttress his arguments, he submits that co-accused Hardeep Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has also opposed the

-3submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She has contended that injury attributed to the petitioner was delcared dangerous to life and due to the injury given by the petitioner, left leg of the complainant had to be amputated. On instructions from SI Rajbeer Singh, she submits that out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. She also affirms the fact that non-bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the complainant. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

6.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was alleged to have given sword blow to the complainant. He was arrested on 26.06.2024 and is in custody since then. Co-accused Hardeep Singh is already on bail. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that to secure the presence of the complainant, non-bailable warrants have been issued, has been affirmed by learned State counsel on instructions from SI Rajbeer Singh. The custody certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year & 11 months as on 26.05.2026. It further shows that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined.

7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the

-4petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 9.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 27.05.2026 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No