← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/49166/2022dismissed

Tejinder Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-09-02Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 02.09.2025 Tejinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 13.10.2021 Karnal Sadar, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 506 District Karnal IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act 1.

Seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in the FIR captioned above, the aggrieved person has come up before this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

2.

Vide order dated 05.09.2022, Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail to the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 on the grounds mentioned in the following paragraphs of the impugned order:

"9. As far as the case of petitioner Renu (in CRM-M-12083-2022) for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, the only allegation in the FIR is that she had raised a 'lalkara' exhorting her companions to give beatings to the complainant and to his brother. There is no specific allegation that she had also inflicted any injury. In any case, she, pursuant to interim directions, has already joined investigation and is stated to be not required for any custodial interrogation. In these circumstances, the petitioner

Renu (in CRM-M-12083-2022), who is a lady and is attributed a 'lalkara' only and has already joined investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation, deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. The petition i.e. CRM-M-12083-2022 on behalf of petitioner Renu, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2022 (in CRM-M-12083-2022) are hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioner-Renu shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

10. As far as the petitioners Amit Gora and Rahul are concerned, it is no doubt correct that they are specifically named in the FIR and are also alleged to have inflicted injuries with the help of sticks. The factum of injuries on the person of the complainant is substantiated from the medical record, which shows that as many as 9 injuries were sustained by him including 2 grievous injuries, which are on the legs. During the course of arguments, while learned State counsel has informed that the aforesaid petitioners are involved in 4 more cases, but a perusal of para No.5 of the reply would indicate that while two of the FIRs already stand cancelled, one FIR has been consigned being untraced.

x x x x

14. Since learned State counsel informed that the petitioner Amit Gora (in CRM-M-12811-2022) and petitioner Rahul (in CRM-M-15584-2022) have otherwise been behind bars since the last about 9 months, this Court is of the opinion that, further detention of the petitioners Amit Gora and Rahul will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to consume time. The petitions i.e. CRM-M-12811-2022 and CRM-M-155842022 on behalf of petitioners Amit Gora and Rahul, respectively, as such, are accepted and the petitioners Amit Gora and Rahul are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned."

3.

Petitioner's counsel seeks cancellation of bail on the grounds that despite considering serious nature of allegations it was not justifiable for the Court to grant them bail.

4.

Counsel for the respondent(s)-accused submits that the bail may not be cancelled and this Court may impose any stringent conditions in addition to the conditions imposed by the trial Court. He further submits that accused never violated any condition as imposed by the trial Court. The accused's counsel submits that the accused would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the accused/respondent(s) repeat the offense or commits any nonbailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, , the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the accused shall have no objection. 5.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the above reasons, no grounds exist to cancel the bail. However, this Court is inclined to add additional condition in the said order dated 05.09.2022 and respondents No. 2 to 4 to comply the said condition as mentioned below:-  



     

                

              

   

    

 

   !

  

  " "

 #$%$  

 

    

 &  &    '

 

  6.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.09.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.