Angad Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 Angad Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

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

Present:

Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present third petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0092, dated 28.05.2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 of IPC (Sections 307 and 325 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Odhan, District Dabwali.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, rajender, s/o Ramjas Vashi. It was alleged that on 27.05.2024, the complainant, his elder brother, namely, Amar Singh, his son, namely, Karan Singh and son of his elder brother, namely, Binder Singh were irrigating their land as their turn of water was till 11:25 P.M. It was alleged that at about 10:45

-2P.M., elder brother of the complainant, namely, Jagdish, armed with stick, his son, namely, Angad Singh (petitioner) armed with wooden stick and three unknown persons armed with wooden sticks came there. It was alleged that Angad Singh (petitioner) told that he was going to irrigate his land. The complainant told that time of your water turn was at 11:25 P.M., and then, Angad Singh gave spade blow on the brother of complainant from backside, namely, Amar Singh, which hit on his head. Brother of complainant, namely, Jagdish gave stick blow upon the complainant, which hit on his left hand and thus, the complainant fell down. Thereafter, Angad Singh (petitioner) gave stick blow on the son of complainant, Karan Singh and on account of the same, he also fell down.

Thereafter, all of them caused injuries to them while they were lying on the ground with sticks. Thereafter, they raised alarm and when the crowd gathered, the accused fled away from the spot along with their weapons after threatening. The injured were shifted to the Government Hospital, Odhan. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2024. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa praying for the grant of regular bail.

However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 11.10.2024.

-3orders dated 29.10.2024 and 23.09.2025, respectively. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present third petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that both the sides, i.e. the petitioner and the complainant are the cousins and the alleged dispute has taken place in the fields on the turn of irrigating the fields. He has submitted that the petitioner has been alleged to have given the spade blow. He has submitted that the ocular version is not medically corroborated. He has submitted that the injured-witness, namely, Amar Singh, has already been examined and thus, there is no probability of the petitioner of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He has submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in one more case under the NDPS Act, however, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court in that case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 11⁄2 years. He has thus submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. 4.

Status report by way of an affidavit of Kapil Ahlawat, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Dabwali, District Sirsa on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

Learned counsel for the complainant, however, has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has played an active role in committing the offence. He has submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner was

-4declared dangerous to life. He has thus submitted that no case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner was declared dangerous to life. He, on instructions, has submitted that the injured-witness, namely, Amar Singh, already stands examined. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses have been examined so far. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

7.

Heard.

8.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that both the sides are close relatives. The dispute between the parties has taken place on account of the turn of irrigating the fields. The petitioner is behind bars since 27.06.2024. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 08 months and 12 days as on 09.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 01 more case, however, he has been acquitted in that case. Out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses have been examined including the injured-witness, namely, Amar Singh. 9.

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

-5sides 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.

10.

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. 11.

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

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 10.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No