Rekha v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 19.09.2025 Rekha .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Vikas Bairagi, Advocate and Mr. Abhimanyu Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ved Parkash, Sr. DAG, 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.263, dated 06.07.2025, under Sections 61(2), 111, 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 351(3), 324(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Gurusevak Singh, son of Ajit Singh. It was alleged that on 05.07.2025, the complainant was going to meet his mother at Balaji Colony, Fatehabad. When he reached near Bharat Gas Agency, the complainant found that Rekha (petitioner) was standing there and on seeing him, Rekha exhorted the other accused, namely, Ravi, Anmol, Bachchu @ Sikander, Shamsher

-2- @ Sheri and from the other side, Janti @ Gurjant, Akash @ Sonu @ Mirdania to beat the complainant. On her exhortion, the complainant was attacked by the co-accused with Gandasi, Dandas, etc. and caused injuries. On raising alarm, the accused persons escaped from the scene of occurrence. The complainant was shifted to the General Hospital, Fatehabad and thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, the petitioner, namely, Rekha was arrested on 07.07.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 06.09.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are that she exhorted the co-accused to beat the complainant, however no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner that she was armed or caused any injury to anyone. He has submitted that false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He has submitted that the investigation is complete and the challan was presented. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as she is not involved in any other case. He has

-3submitted that thus in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and it is on her extortion, the complainant has been caused injuries, which were declared grievous. He, on instructions, has submitted that the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the allegations made against the petitioner that she exhorted the co-accused, however there are no allegations of causing any injuries to anyone. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 02 months and 11 days as on 17.09.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Investigation is complete and the challan is presented. 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 succeed in making out a case for the grant of

-4bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 19.09.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No