Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/24080/2026 of DESHRAJ @ GOLU Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 15 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRM-M-24080-2026 Date of Decision:15.07.2026 DESHRAJ @ GOLU ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:15.07.2026
DESHRAJ @ GOLU
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL.
Present:
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This petition has been filed under section 483 of Bharatiya (439 CRPC) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case of FIR No. 305 dated 11.08.2024 registered under sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351(2), and 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and (Corresponding Law sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 506, and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860) at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2024, complainant Naveen and his friend Manjeet were intercepted near DS School, village Kairu, by the petitioner and other co-accused, who were allegedly armed with deadly weapons including swords, farsa, axe, lathis and dandas. The assailants allegedly inflicted multiple injuries upon Manjeet, while the complainant escaped and hid in a nearby field. After the assailants fled, the complainant found Manjeet lying unconscious. An FIR was registered on the basis of the complainant's statement. During treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak, Manjeet succumbed to his injuries on 04.09.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that although the petitioner has been named in the same, no specific overt act or injury has been attributed to him. It is further argued that there is an unexplained delay of about 48 hours in registration of the FIR, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. He further submits that despite both Naveen and Manjeet having allegedly been declared fit to make statements, only the statement of Naveen was recorded, whereas the statement of injured Manjeet was not recorded, which casts a serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.10.2024, therefore, his further custodial incarceration serves no useful purpose. It is also argued that the co-accused Ashish has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-65321-2025. On the ground of parity, coupled with the petitioner's prolonged custody and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant. They contended that the petitioner's case is not at par with that of co-accused Ashish, who has already been granted bail, as a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the statement of injured Manjeet (since deceased) recorded under Section 180 BNSS. It is submitted that the petitioner inflicted sword blows on the hands and legs of the RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh deceased, resulting in amputation of one hand, and the said version stands corroborated by the medical evidence. Considering the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the supporting medical evidence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. At this stage, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been named as an accused in the FIR and a specific role has been attributed to him. Besides, the statement of injured Manjeet, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries, specifically named the petitioner as one of the assailants who inflicted the sword blows on him. The said statement, being in the nature of a dying declaration cannot be disbelieved and is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. In view of the specific allegations, the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and the material collected during investigation, the petitioner does not deserved the concession of regular bail.
8. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
9. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the trial.
(H.S.GREWAL) 15.07.2026
JUDGE renu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh