Manish Alias Manish Kumar v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 02.09.2025 Manish @ Manish Kumar ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present:- Mr. Azad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.56, dated 19.02.2024, under Sections 323, 324, 34, 341, 506 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 307, 326, 148, 149 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Civil Line Jind, District Jind, Haryana.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Ankit. It was alleged that on 17.02.2024, when he was going along with his friend, namely, Saurabh and was sitting on the pillion seat of his motorcycle, then at about 02:00/03:00 P.M., 03-04 boys on two motorcycles came and stopped their bike from front and behind of their motorcycle. Harsh, resident of Arhika stabbed him with knife and others gave them kick blows to them. They received injuries and thus, it attracted the crowd at the scene of the occurrence. The assailants escaped from the place of the occurrence. They

( 2 ) were shifted to PGI, Rohtak. It was alleged that Harsh, Sandeep and Gugan have caused injuries to them and thus, the legal action be taken against them. On registration of FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 11.04.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, praying for grant of regular bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.10.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously roped in the present case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any role has been attributed on him. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 11.04.2024, however there is no progress in the trial. He has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Akash @ Kashi has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-44807-2025. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He, on instructions, has

( 3 ) submitted that the petitioner is a part of unlawful assembly. He, on instructions has submitted that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 5 witnesses, have been examined till date. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner dated 01.09.2025 today in the Court and the same is taken on record. He has endorsed the fact that co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025. 5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the present case during the investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 11.04.2024 and since then, he is behind the bars. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 20 days as on 01.09.2025. Co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025. 7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

8.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail on parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, if the petitioner

( 4 ) does not furnish the bail bonds within 7 days from today, then his further custody after one week will not be counted in this case. 02.09.2025 ( Rajesh Bhardwaj ) Geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No