Lokesh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:10.06.2025 Lokesh .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.

**** H.S.Grewal, J. (Oral) This is the second petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.641 dated 09.08.2024 under Sections 115(323-IPC), 118(1)(324-IPC), 3(5) (34IPC), 351(2) (506-IPC), 109(1) (307-IPC) BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station, Sector 58, Faridabad.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police in collusion with the complainant due to extraneous consideration. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being brother of the main accused, has been falsely roped in the FIR in question, which has been registered after a long delay of three days. No injury has been attributed to the petitioner in the present case. Furthermore, the complainant and the injured victim did not support the

case of the prosecution and were declared hostile during trial. The petitioner has been in custody since 24.09.2024. It has also been submitted that only 02 out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined so far and hence, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. A prayer, therefore, has been made to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that Manjit, main accused, has assaulted the injured victim with sharp edged weapon while the petitioner caught hold of his hands. He has not been able to dispute that the complainant and injured victim had not supported the case of prosecution. Learned State counsel filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 02 prosecution witnesses out of 13 have been examined so far. 6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Learned CJM, Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed

hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.06.2025 (H.S.GREWAL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No