Parshant Alias Prshant v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.230 Case No. : CRM-M-36299-2025 Decided On : October 30, 2025 Parshant @ Prshant ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.179 dated 28.03.2024, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 427 and 506 IPC (charges framed under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 506, 427 read with Section 34 IPC), registered at Police Station Old Industrial Panipat, District Panipat. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by the complainant namely Deepak, wherein he stated that he was running a Meat Shop. On 27.03.2024, at about 01:50 PM, when he was present at his shop, the petitioner along with his four friends, armed with bindas, gandasis etc. came to his shop and started threatening and assaulting the complainant, as a result whereof, he
suffered grievous injuries. They also damaged his motorcycle and before leaving the spot, threatened to kill him.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that it was initially stated by the complainant that the scuffle took place in his shop but later on, he changed his version by stating that it was not in his shop but on the road. It has also been stated that during the investigation, one wooden baton had been recovered by the police but no opinion of the doctor had been taken as to whether the injuries attracting Section 326 could have been caused with the help of said baton or not. He has further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the bail petition while contending that due to some previous enmity, the petitioner and his accomplices assaulted the complainant with their respective weapons, thereby causing him grievous injuries. They also damaged his motorcycle. So, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
As per the allegations, the petitioner, along with other co-accused, assaulted the complainant and caused injuries on his person. The petitioner was allegedly armed with danda. As per Status Report, injuries no.3 and 6 were held to be grievous in nature, caused by blunt weapon, whereas injury no.5 was declared to be simple in nature, caused by sharp weapon. Injuries no.1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 were also held to be simple in nature, having caused by blunt weapon. None of the injuries was declared to be dangerous to life.
The medical opinion of the concerned doctor had also been annexed with the Status Report as Annexure R-5.
As per Status Report, there are total 14 prosecution witnesses, out of whom three had been examined and remaining witnesses are yet to be examined.
As per the Custody Certificate dated 30.10.2025, which has been produced by learned State counsel today in the Court, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 01 year 05 months and 19 days. Trial of the case is going on, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
October 30, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.