← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40396/2025allowed

Dharmendar Singh Alias Gonu v. State Of Haryana

2025-08-01Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M-40396-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40396-2025 Date of decision: 01.08.2025 Dharmender Singh @ Gonu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

Present:

Mr. G. S. Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner.  

 

    **** 

 , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.239 dated 02.11.2024, under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 351(2) BNS and Sections 61(2), 109, 110, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 190, 191(3), 238 BNS added lateron, registered at Police Station Barara, District Ambala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that petitioner along with co-accused has caused injuries on the head of the complainant. However, it is stated that injuries on the head were found simple in nature.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and he is not involved in any other case. The petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months and 21 days as under trial, the trial is likely to take a long time therefore, he be released on bail pending trial.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

 

 

     on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer ANIL KUMAR 2025.08.02 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-40396-2025 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner as the injuries were given with the intentions to kill the complainant. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months and 21 days. 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner and the fact that he is not involved in any other case, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

( ) 

 01.08.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.08.02 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document