CRM-M/34072/2026 of ANKIT @ SUNNY Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 2 September 2026

1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS of 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR NO.095 dated 25.04.2026 under Section 109(1), 115, 3(5), 333,351 (2) BNS, 2023, (Section 115(2), 61(2), 238A added later on) (Earlier Under Section 307/323/34/452/506/323/ 120-B/201 IPC) Police Station Fatehabad, District Bhuna.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Rajesh, a grocery shopkeeper and Panchayat Member of Dhani Bhojraj, District Fatehabad. On 24.04.2026, while attempting to mediate a dispute between Sadhu Ram and Subhash, he was threatened by Sadhu Ram's sons. Later the same evening, at about 7:00–7:30 PM, accused Sachin and Ankit arrived at his shop on a motorcycle, where Sachin allegedly attacked him with an axe, causing injury to his left hand. The RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh complainant defended himself until people gathered, whereupon the accused fled while extending death threats. The incident was captured on the shop's CCTV, and an FIR was thereafter registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the petitioner merely accompanied co-accused Sachin on a scooty to the shop of the complainant. The specific allegation of entering the shop, abusing the complainant, and inflicting an axe blow on his left hand is exclusively attributed to co-accused Sachin. He further submits that the complainant himself states that he used a plastic box and a chair to defend himself, and no overt act or specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no allegation that the petitioner entered the shop or caused any injury, and therefore his false implication rests solely on his alleged presence with the co-accused.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vishal Kashyap, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 06 days and involved in one more case and he has been released on bail in that case.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the custody for the last 04 months and 06 days and involved in one more case and has been released on bail in that case coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail 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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 02.09.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh