Sonu v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101+220 CRM-38798-2025 in/and CRM-M-53454-2024 Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 SONU ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Pardeep Chhoker, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) CRM-38798-2025 This application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C) for addition of offence under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) in the head note, prayer clause of the above mentioned petition. Notice in the application.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice in the application and submits that he has no objection if the same is allowed. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) is ordered to be added in the head note, prayer clause of the main case.

Registry is directed to make the necessary corrections.

-2Main case 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 375 dated 21.09.2023 under Sections 392, 394, 460, 302, 120-B, 412, 201 of IPC, 1860, Sections 25,27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the co-accused namely Raju has criminal background and is the real brother of the petitioner. On 21.09.2023, the co-accused has given Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner by apprising that he had looted this money from a family living in a Dera in Asa Kalan, District Panipat. It is further alleged that the petitioner also knows the coaccused Jai Bhagwan and Naveen being friend of petitioner's brother /coaccused Raju. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He further submits that there was no evidence against the petitioner except recovery of Rs. 1000/-, which was planted by the police only to implicate him falsely. The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2023.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate dated 23.09.2025 of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per which, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 years 11 months and 17 days. and the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

-35.

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

6.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 years 11 months and 17 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7.

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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 24.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No