Jatin Alias Jitansh Alias Tapla v. State Of Haryana
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71288-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Jatin @ Jitansh @ Tapla
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate and Ms. Shilpa Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.151 dated 28.04.2024, under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 302, 307, 341 and 411 IPC (added later on) registered at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar. FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of Naresh s/o Sube Singh and Rahul s/o Dilbagh Singh, which reads as under:
"Statement of Rahul son of Dilbagh Singh resident of village Agroha district Hisar MO.NO. 7988504518 Age 24 years Education 10th pass stated that I am resident of above address and do agriculture work. Yesterday on 27.04.2024, I had gone to work in the fields with my family's Grandfather Chandram son of Ram Kishan and uncle Naresh son of Sube Singh resident of Agroha, at around 11.50 PM, all three of us were returning home from the farm on a Splendor motorcycle which
-2belonged to Naresh was being driven by Chandram. When we reached a little ahead of Agroha Dham towards the school, Sunil Tara son of Om Prakash resident of Agroha was sitting on a motorcycle and some other person was driving the motorcycle. He told us that you are stuck today, come forward, we will treat you and went away with the motorcycle. When we reached near the school, Surender @ Bihari, Sandeep @ Deepi, son of Om Prakash, Jatin @ Tabla son of Umed Singh, Sunny @ Daku son of Chandiram, Vikas @ Nikka son of Dhiru Ram were standing on the road and two motorcycles were standing on the side.
All five of them blocked our way and Surender @ Bihari son of Lalchand hit a bottle on the bike and Deepi hit the chand loha in his hand which had an iron rod attached to it on the head of Chandram sitting on the motorcycle, due to which all of us fell down along with the bike. In the meantime, Sahil son of Subhash, Rohit son of Surender, Sushil Gurjar son of Ramphal, Surender @ Godu son of Pyarelal, Vikas @ Kala son of Prem and Sagar son Taniram resident of Agroha and 8-10 other persons came there on motorcycles. Surender @ Bihari hit me with a rod, Jatin Tabla and Sunny Daku hit Naresh with the sharp weapons in their hands. All of them had sticks, axes, swords and rods. Then all of them together attacked our body indiscriminately, due to which we got severely injured.
Then all of them threatened to kill us and on seeing a car on the road, all of them fled away from the spot. Then my family members admitted us to MAMC Agroha. Due to serious injuries to Chandram, he was admitted to Sapra Hospital, Hisar, a private hospital. Our treatment is going on at MAMC Agroha. We have been injured as part of a conspiracy. We already have a dispute with Deepi. Deepi's mother Santara Devi, wife of Omprakash, got us injured by hatching a conspiracy and Santara Devi is the one giving them money. You please take legal action against them and get us justice, I have got statement recorded, heard and it is correct.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased in
-3the present case happens to be one Chandram s/o Ram Kishan to whom fatal injuries have been caused by co-accused Sandeep @ Deepi. The attribution against the petitioner is that of inflicting injuries to Naresh Kumar. It has been contended that even as per the version in the FIR, the petitioner is stated to have been yielding a sharp-edged weapon, however, recovery of lathi has instead been effected from him. Even the injuries sustained by Naresh are not by a very sharp-edged weapon but straightly by a blunt weapon. He further contends that none of the injuries is grievous or dangerous to life. The petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2024 and has already undergone the custody of more than one year and seven months; only two out of 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The investigation in the present case is complete.
4.
On the other hand, State counsel contends that the petitioner is involved in two more cases, which fact has not been disclosed in the petition. She, is however, not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner has undergone the custody of nearly one year and seven months. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations levelled; the period of custody, the stage of the trial where only 2 out of 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, present petition deserves some merit. It is however, noticeable that the petitioner has not made an honest disclosure about his involvement in other cases. For such a concealment, he is burdened with the costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with DHFWS SKS USERFEES CS OFFICE, PKL, A/c No.5010089689492, IFS Code HDFC0004832, HDFC Bank, Sector 6,
-4Panchkula. The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.
8.
It is however, made clear that in case, petitioner is found involved in any criminal case during the pendency of present case, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
21.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No