Ashok v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 ASHOK ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 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. 173 dated 22.06.2025 under Sections 103(1) BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Rohtak Sadar, District Rohtak, Haryana. 2.

In brief, the prosecution case is that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of one Sharda, wife of Rajbir Singh. She alleged that her second marriage with Rajbir @ Raju was solemnized in 2022. The said Rajbir was employed in the Electricity Department at village Nuna Majra, District Jhajjar, and was residing with her at Prahladpur, Delhi. On 19.06.2025 at around 8:00 PM, her husband informed her over the phone that his brother Ashok had assaulted him, causing injuries to his eyes. On 22.06.2025, she took her husband to Kiloi Hospital and thereafter to PGIMS, Rohtak for further treatment. After his discharge, when she brought him back to village Kiloi, he was found unconscious and was subsequently declared dead. She alleged that her husband died as a result of the injuries inflicted by his brother Ashok during the incident that occurred on 19.06.2025 due to a dispute regarding the division of the family house.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the injuries alleged to have been caused are simple in nature, and there is no X-ray report on record to suggest that the said injuries could have been fatal. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.07.2025. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Ved Parkash, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 23 days and is not involved in any other case. He has also produced the medical opinion available on the police file and the same is sketchy which indicates that the injuries sustained might have been responsible for the death. He further submits that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined so far. 6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 23 days, out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined so far and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude; this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served for further incarceration of the petitioner. Moreover, bail

-3is rule and jail is exception. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 8.

Therefore, 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. 9.

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

10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also be disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 12.12.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No