Rahul @ Balori v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.11.2025 Rahul @ Balori .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.273, dated 27.06.2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 506, 201, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, District Faridabad. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, Vikas. It was alleged that on 26.06.2022, at about 7.00 P.M., the complainant along with Deepak and Vinod reached near wine shop on a motorcycle and standing on the road side, then, Amar Chand, Mangal, Golu, Chintu, Gheta and 10 other boys, who were armed with swords, iron rods and sticks, came there. It was alleged that Amar Chand exhorted to teach a lesson to Deepak and thus, all rushed to cause injuries to Deepak. Mangal gave an iron rod blow to Deepak and other assailants also caused injuries to Deepak with

swords, bricks, dandas, etc. and then left the place of occurrence, believing Deepak to be dead. Thereafter the complainant called the family members of Deepak and then got admitted him to Santosh Hospital. Thus the request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the treatment, Deepak succumbed to the injuries. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2023.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, praying for the grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.04.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-174572024 praying for the grant of bail, however the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.05.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for the grant of bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioner has been surfaced in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the orders passed by this Court in CRM-M36869-2023 and CRM-M-41272-2024, dated 04.12.2023 and 24.01.2025, respectively, whereby co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Ansh Verma @ Kariya and Amit @ Shambhu have been granted bail by this Court. He

thus, submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of the coaccused. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He, on instructions from SI Dinesh Kumar, has submitted that complicity of the petitioner has been surfaced during the investigation. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. However, he has endorsed the fact that co-accused of petitioner, namely, Ansh Verma @ Kariya and Amit @ Shambhu, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2023 and 24.01.2025, respectively passed in CRM-M-36869-2023 and CRM-M-41272-2024. 5.

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, he has been arrayed as an accused during the investigation. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 02 years, 07 months and 10 days as on 03.11.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Admittedly, co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Ansh Verma @ Kariya and Amit @ Shambhu, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2023 and 24.01.2025, respectively passed in CRM-M36869-2023 and CRM-M-41272-2024. 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.

8.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeed in making out a case for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with the co-accused as stated above.

9.

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

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 04.11.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No