CRM-M/41592/2026 of HARSH ALIAS NANIYA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

1. T 483 of Bhara grant of regu registered und Bharatiya Nya added later on

2. T complaint sub

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH C NANIYA

Versus HARYANA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA e date when the judgment is reser e date when the judgment is pron e date when the judgment is uplo bsite ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full judg nounced e delay, if any, of the pronouncem gment and reasons thereof. Mohd. Yousuf, Advocate for the p Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryan *** BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita lar bail in case arising out of der Sections 110, 115, 126, 1 aya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “B

n) at Police Station Badhra, Distr The aforementioned FIR was reg bmitted by the complainant-Vika

B AND HARYANA AT H CRM-M-41592-2026 (O&M)

... Petitioner

...Respondent ANISHA BATRA rved 09.09.2026 nounced 10.09.2026 aded on the 10.09.2026 udgment is gment is Full ment of full Not applicable petitioner na d by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for FIR No.106 dated 08.06.2026 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of BNS”) (Section 109(2) of BNS ict Charkhi Dadri. gistered on the basis of a written as alias Padwa, alleging therein

n r f S n n AMIT SHARMA

that on the ev more persons, village in his way, a Campe driver's side o was driver of along with 3-4 armed with w striking blows complainant a they left the sp treatment.

3. A initiated. Duri was procured, seen while ope as 13 injuries 351(3) and 23 deleted. The p They suffered and identified Camper vehic now stands co vening of 07.06.2026, he along , namely Tanuj and Sonu alias car bearing registration number er make vehicle came from the o of his vehicle. The complainant the said vehicle and the accuse 4 more persons, were occupants weapons. They opened an ass s with wooden sticks, iron pipe and then, while proclaiming that pot. The complainant was admitt After registration of FIR, in ing investigation, the CCTV foo , wherein the present petitioner ening attack upon the victim. Th

s. During the course of investig 8(3) of BNS were added and of petitioner and some co-accused d disclosure statements admitting d the spot of occurrence. The le used in the offence as well as oncluded.

with his friend Rahul and two Don, was going towards their r HR-34-M-4717. While on the opposite side and directly hit the t found that the accused Dinesh ed Surender, Anuj and Maheshi, s of the same. All of them were ault upon the complainant by es and axe on the person of the t they would kill him in future, ted to hospital and was provided nvestigation proceedings were otage of the place of occurrence along with the co-accused was he victim had sustained as many gation, offences under Sections ffence under Section 351(2) was d were arrested on 09.06.2026. g their involvement in the crime e petitioner got recovered the s a wooden danda. Investigation

o r e e h , e y e , d e e s y s s . e e n AMIT SHARMA

4. It falsely implica since 09.06.20 prosecution w not serve any His anteceden be imposed up benefit of bail

5. P consideration coupled with injuries in this the petitioner stressed that th

6. T counsel for the

7. T unlawful assem have volunta complainant. T subject offenc concluded. T

t is argued by learned counsel fo ated in this case. He was not nam

024. The trial will take consid witness has been examined so far useful purpose. No specific over nts are clean. He is ready to abid pon him. It is, therefore, argued . Per contra, learned State couns the gravity of the allegations a the fact that the victim sustain s case, out of which two were d does not deserve to be extended he petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival e parties. The petitioner is alleged to ha mbly and in prosecution of comm arily caused simple as well The allegations make out a prim ces as against the petitioner. How Trial will take considerable

or the petitioner that he has been med in the FIR. He is in custody derable time to conclude as no

r. His continued detention would rt act has been attributed to him. e by the terms and conditions to that he deserves to be extended sel has argued that taking into as leveled against the petitioner, ned as many as seven grievous declared to be dangerous to life, d benefit of bail. It is, therefore, e allowed. submissions made by learned ave formed membership of an mon object thereof, is alleged to as grievous injuries to the ma facie case for commission of wever, investigation now stands time to conclude. Further

n y o d . o d o , s , , d n o e f s r AMIT SHARMA

incarceration o specific overt law that pre-t sentence and t jail is to secu preventive or this Court is o for grant of re and the petitio personal/surety Judicial Magis

8. It for the purpos bearing on the

9. S any, is rendere 10.09.2026 Amit Sharma of the petitioner is not going to act has been attributed to him. trial incarceration should not b that bail is the rule and jail is a ure appearance of the accused punitive. Taking into consider of the considered opinion that th elease on bail in his favour. Acco oner is ordered to be released o y bonds to the satisfaction of strate/ Duty Magistrate concerne t is made clear that any observa se of deciding the present petiti e merits of the case. Since the main petition has been ed infructuous. ( Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No

o serve any fruitful purpose. No It is well-settled proposition of be a replica of post-conviction an exception. The object of the during trial, and it cannot be ation the above discussed facts, e petitioner has made out a case ordingly, the petition is allowed on bail subject to his furnishing f the learned trial Court/Chief ed. ation made herein above is only ion and the same shall have no allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

- Yes/No

o f n e e , e d g f y o f AMIT SHARMA