CRM-M/33541/2026 of JASWANT @ BHALA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 7 July 2026

218+225+233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.33541 of 2026

Date of Decision:-07.07.2026

Jaswant @ Bhala

…..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CRM-M No.34709 of 2026

Ved Parkash @ Sethia

…..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CRM-M No.34840 of 2026

Tulsi Ram

…..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CRM-M No.35040 of 2026

Rohtash

…..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CRM-M No.35044 of 2026

Sudesh @ Nikhil

…..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

YAG DUTT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate

for the petitioner in CRM-M-33541-2026.

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M Nos.34709, 34840, 35040 &

35044 of 2026.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose of five petitions titled above, preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No.108 dated 31.05.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 126, 127(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNS’), at Police Station Nathu Sarai Chopta, District Sirsa.

2. Custody certificates filed by learned State counsel in Court are taken on record.

3. On a complaint submitted by one Rameshwar, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation was that on 30.05.2025, Rohtash, Nikhil, Mukesh, Jagdish, Sethio, Raju and Ballaram assaulted him, his son Sanwara and his daughter-in-law with sticks, axe etc. His son Sanwara suffered injuries as a result of which, he later expired.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were falsely implicated. It has been argued that petitioner Jaswant @ Bhala YAG DUTT

was not named in the FIR and was arraigned as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused. In so far as the other petitioners are concerned, they were duly named in the FIR, but it has been submitted that they are in custody for the last over 1 year, petitioners Jaswant @ Bhala, Tulsi Ram and Sudesh @ Nikhil having been arrested on 19.06.2025, petitioner Rohtash on 01.06.2025, petitioner Rohtash on 01.06.2025 and petitioner Ved Parkash @ Sethia on 03.06.2026; final report stands submitted; neither the complainant who is the father of the deceased nor other witnesses (including the witness who had allegedly supplied the CCTV footage) have supported the case of the prosecution; co-accused Rajpal @ Dholu, Govind, Balwant and Om Parkash have already been granted regular bail vide orders dated 06.07.2026, 01.07.2026 and 06.07.2026 respectively passed by this Court in CRM-M-33332-2026, CRM-M-33971-2026 and CRM-M-33716-2026 respectively; trial will still take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail applications. It has been submitted that petitioner Jaswant @ Bhala was seen in the CCTV footage giving merciless beatings to the deceased. In so far as the other accused are concerned, they were duly named in the FIR and were also seen standing on the place of occurrence and were seen carrying the injury towards the fields.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand. YAG DUTT

7. No doubt, the incident is extremely serious and there is a CCTV footage of the same as well. However, it has also been pointed out during the course of arguments that the complainant who is none other than the father of the deceased and other witnesses and even the person, who had provided the CCTV footage, have not supported the case of the prosecution. At this stage, a dent has definitely been created in the case of the prosecution. As to whether the petitioners have actually committed the offence or not shall be determined only when the trial concludes. In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 07, 2026

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT