Hanuman Alias Doctor v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 Hanuman @ Doctor ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Mohit, Advocate;

Mr. Pavitra, Advocate;

Mr. Bharat, Advocate and Mr. Sachin, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, 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.221, dated 09.09.2021, under Sections 307, 34, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, Haryana. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case has been got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Raj Kumar, s/o Dhoop Singh. It was alleged that the complainant was in the liquor business and owned liquor vends in different villages. Sushil son of Tejpal, Sunny son of Satpal and Parvesh Kumar son of Chandi Ram were his partners. On 08.09.2021, at about 08:00 P.M., when the complainant, along with his partners, was sitting in front of the liquor vend, a white

-2colour Verna car came to the spot. Four persons sitting in the car with illegal pistols came out and raised Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to the complainant for developing a dispute with Bhambu and Ramphal @ Bachi son of Chandi Ram. All the accused started firing at them from their pistols. One bullet struck on the left leg of the complainant. On the gathering of passerbys, all four boys fled away along with their respective weapons from the place of occurrence. Meanwhile, the complainant and his companions starting following the Verna car and the accused continued firing upon them. Thereafter, on seeing the police vehicle, all the accused left the car and fled away. Ramphal alias Bachi, who was standing at the gate of his house, was planning to hide all four boys. Thereafter, the Verna car was taken into possession.

Ramphal alias Bachi had got them attacked from four unknown persons with an intention to kill the complainant. The complainant was shifted to Sapra Hospital, Hisar for treatment. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced, thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2022. 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 30.07.2025.

Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

-33.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the coaccused, namely, Karamjeet @ Kannu. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed in CRM-M62265-2023, whereby, co-accused, namely, Karamjeet @ Kannu has been granted regular bail by this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 10.03.2022. He has submitted that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

4.

Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Karamjeet @ Kannu. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 10.03.2022. Co-accused, namely, Karamjeet @ Kannu is on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with him. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 03 years, 09 months and 05 days as on 17.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 04 other cases, however in 01 case, he has been acquitted and in 02 cases, he is on bail.

-47.

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 petitioners succeed in making out a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity.

9.

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. 10.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, if the petitioner does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 19.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No