Roshan v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 ROSHAN ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 86 dated 16.02.2021 under Sections 148,149 and 302 IPC (Sections 148 & 149 IPC was deleted and Section 34 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station, Samalkha, District Panipat. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has given a danda blow on the head of one Sunny (deceased). It is stated that the occurrence has taken place right outside the house of the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific role has been attributed to him in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner, in order to

-2protect himself and his family members, exercises the right to self-defence. He further submits that the co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 years 05 months and 27 days. He further submits that out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses, 04 have been examined so far.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the above and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 years 05 months and 27 days; 04 witnesses have been examined so far; 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. 8.

Hence, 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.

-39.

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) 18.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No