Raman v. State Of Haryana

-1THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 Raman ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Ajay Arora Bharti, Advocate for Ms. Divya Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.262, dated 20.05.2025, under Sections 109(1), 115, 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, Vikas, son of Parkash. It was alleged that the complainant had an old enmity with Mitia Saini and he had earlier issued life threat to him. It was alleged that on 17.05.2025, at about 02:00 A.M., Jaswinder @ Jassi visited his house and

-2told that he could settle his matter with Amit @ Mitia and thus, the complainant along with Jaswinder @ Jassi reached near Govt. Tubewell, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, where Raman (petitioner), Himanshu, Gurdatta @ Lali, Ajay Singh and Sukhdeep @ Gilli were present. Gurditta @ Lali, Ajay @ Ganda and Raman (petitioner) armed with Kappa, Jaswinder @ Jassu had also taken datar from Himanshu and thus, Raman warned the complainant to settle the matter with Amit @ Mitia, otherwise he would teach him a lesson. The complainant tried to fled away from the spot, however, the assailants chased him and then, Ajay @ Ganda gave Kappa blow on the head of complainant, Raman and Jaswinder @ Battle, who were armed with Kappa and datar gave blow of the same at his back, hand and legs and Himanshu @ Lucky, Sukhdeep @ Jiddi gave fist & kick blows.

Thereafter, the complainant raised alarm and when he crowd gathered, the accused fled away from the spot. The complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa by his friend, namely, Jagsir Singh. Thus the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, praying for the grant of bail. However after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2025.

-3petitioner 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 and frivolously implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 17.05.2025 but the FIR was registered after a delay of 04 days, i.e. on 20.05.2025. He has submitted that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are on back, hands and legs, however the injuries, which are declared to be grievous in nature are attributed to the main accused, namely, Gurditta @ Lali. He has submitted that co-accused, namely, Sukhdeep and Jaswinder @ Jassu have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and thus, case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 21.05.2025, however, there is no material progress in the trial. He has submitted that the investigation is already complete and the challan has been presented. He has thus submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and he has played an active role in causing injuries to the complainant. He has submitted that the petitioner gave Kappa blows on the back, hands and legs of the complainant. He has submitted that there are total 11 injuries on the complainant including the head injury, which was declared to be

-4dangerous to life and thus, Section 109 BNS was added later on. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case bearing FIR No.129, dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 190, 191(2) and 324(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station City Sirsa. He has submitted that the investigation is complete and challan against the petitioner has already been presented. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 07 prosecution witnesses only 02 witnesses have been examined so far and 05 witnesses are yet to be examined including the injured. He has thus submitted that the petitioner is directly involved in the offence committed and there are serious allegations against him and thus, no case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is revealed that the petitioner was alleged to be armed with Kappa and had inflicted injuries of the same on the back, hands and legs of the complainant. As per the MLR report, the complainant had suffered 11 injuries including the head injury, which was found to be dangerous to life and thereafter, Section 109 BNS was added later on. The petitioner is involved in one more case bearing FIR No.129, dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 190, 191(2) and 324(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station City Sirsa. Investigation in this case is already

-5complete and the challan has already been presented. Out of total 07 prosecution witnesses only 02 witnesses have been examined so far and 05 witnesses are yet to be examined including the injured. As submitted before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused, namely, Sukhdeep and Jaswinder @ Jassu have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused, however, both the co-accused were juvenile and thus, no case of the grant of bail to the petitioner is made out on the basis of parity with that of the co-accused, who have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

7.

Keeping in view the above said position, this Court does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed.

8.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 17.02.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No