Rajesh Devi v. State Of Haryana And ANR
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (107+206) Date of Decision:30.06.2026 RAJESH DEVI ... Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ... Respondents -.-
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1.
Mr. Suraj Kaundal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) CRM-25516-2026 1.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying application, and the same being duly supported by sufficient grounds, the application is allowed. Consequently, the FIR (Annexure A-4) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-25519-2026 1.1.
For the reasons set forth in the application, and being satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out, the same is hereby allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
-:2:- Main Case 2.
The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.05.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby the application filed by the applicant-accused seeking the grant of regular bail came to be dismissed. The appellant has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order on the grounds urged in the present appeal. 3.
Briefly stated, FIR No. 48 dated 14.03.2026 was registered at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari, under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the applicant-accused and other co-accused on the basis of a statement made by the complainant, Balbir Singh, son of Sham Lal.
3.1.
It was alleged by the complainant that on 13.03.2026, at about 10:00/10:30 a.m., while he was harvesting his mustard crop in his fields, Bholi Devi and the present applicant, Rajesh Devi, approached him and picked up a quarrel. During the course of the altercation, they allegedly abused him by referring to his caste and addressed him as "Chamar" and "Dhed." It was further alleged that shortly thereafter, Kapil, Love Yadav, and Anu also arrived at the spot and jointly assaulted the complainant. According to the allegations, Love Yadav inflicted a blow with an iron rod on the complainant's left elbow; Kapil delivered a fist blow on his neck; the present applicant allegedly gave fist blows on his abdomen; and Anu assaulted him by administering kicks and fist blows on his buttocks. It was
-:3:- further alleged that Bholi Devi caught hold of the complainant while the assault was being carried out.
3.2.
The complainant further alleged that the accused persons forcibly removed a sum of 20,000/- ₹ from the pocket of his trousers. It was asserted that the entire occurrence was witnessed by the complainant's wife and was also captured by the CCTV cameras installed in his agricultural fields. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the applicant and the other accused persons. 3.3.
The applicant-accused was arrested on 19.05.2026 and has remained in judicial custody ever since.
4.
Learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, vehemently opposed the present appeal and contended that the allegations levelled against the applicantaccused disclose the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was submitted that the accusations are of a serious nature and attract the rigours of the aforesaid special enactment. Learned counsel further argued that the investigation/proceedings are still at a nascent stage and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on the concession of regular bail at this stage. It was, accordingly, prayed that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 5.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant-accused deserves the concession of regular bail. It is not disputed that the applicant is a woman
-:4:- and has remained in judicial custody since 19.05.2026. The investigation, insofar as she is concerned, stands substantially completed, and her further custodial interrogation is not stated to be necessary. Moreover, the trial is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging her incarceration pending trial.
5.1.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, and the applicantaccused is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to her furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1.
The applicant-accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.
2.
The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall she attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.
3.
The applicant-accused shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event she is in possession of a passport, she shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
4.
The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the applicant-accused
-:5:- her permanent residential address as well as her present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5.
The applicant-accused shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, her Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of her immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6.
The applicant-accused shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in her residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.
7.
The applicant-accused shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless her personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. She shall not absent herself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or her unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of
-:6:- the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.
6.
In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 30.06.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?
Yes / No Whether reportable?
Yes / No