Hasin Alias Haseen v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-71720-2025 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.71720 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 Hasin @ Haseen .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ****

Present:

Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC).

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.

***** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) CRM-11295-2026 Instant application has been filed praying for amending the grounds of the bail petition by making correction in para No.8 of the petitioner regarding the antecedents of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inadvertently in para No.8 of the petitioner, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, but the petitioner is involved in other cases, however, he is on bail in all the cases and thus, he prays that the petition may kindly be amended.

Notice in the application.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant. She has pleaded no objection if the prayer made in the application is allowed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going

CRM-M-71720-2025 (O&M) -2through the contents of the application, the same is allowed. Registry is directed to do the needful.

CRM-M-71720-2025 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.203, dated 30.12.2024, under Sections 109(1), 191(3), 190, 333, 351(3), 115(2), 117(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25-54-59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bichhore, District Nuh.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Yunus. As evident from the allegations made in the FIR, the complainant and accused side were already inimical to each other and there are ongoing litigation cases between them. On 28.12.2024 at about 05:00-05:30 p.m., the present occurrence as alleged took place in which accused Ikram, Irshad, Salman, Haseen (petitioner) etc. came armed with sticks, rods and guns etc. All of them attacked the complainant side. Jalauddin fired from gun, which hit the right hand of Irshad and thereafter, Sappan also fired from his pistol. Then Haseen (petitioner) son of Khussi hit with a stick and Khussi son of Nijra fired a bullet shot. In this occurrence Sarukh gave stick blows to the complainant.

On raising alarm, all the accused escaped from the place of occurrence along with their respective weapons. Thus, request was made to take legal action against all the accused persons. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The injured were medico legally examined. The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced.

CRM-M-71720-2025 (O&M) -3Judge, Nuh praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Nuh declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail on the basis of parity with that of the co-accused. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-34669-2025, whereby co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Arshad @ Arsad Khan @ Sadda, has been granted the concession of bail. He has submitted that case of the petitioner is at par with coaccused, who has been granted bail by this Court. He submits that on the basis of the parity, petitioner deserves to be granted bail as case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She, however, has endorsed the fact that case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused, namely, Arshad @ Arsad Khan @ Sadda, who has already been granted bail by this Court. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was alleged to have given stick blow upon the injured. He was arrested on 06.05.2025. Fire arm injuries have been attributed to the co-accused of the petitioner. Admittedly, co-accused of the

CRM-M-71720-2025 (O&M) -4petitioner, namely, Arshad @ Arsad Khan @ Sadda, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 passed in CRM-M34669-2025. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 10 months and 10 days as on 16.03.2026. it further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 12 other cases, however, in 11 of the cases, he is on bail.

7.

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. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. 8.

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. 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.

9.

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

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 16.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No