CRM-M/33332/2026 of RAJPAL @ DHOLU Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 6 July 2026

IN T

Rajpal @ Dho

State of Harya

CORAM : H Present: M

M

VIKRAM AG

Pr Bharatiya Nag grant of regu registered und BNS at Police

2. C is taken on rec

3. O question was Nikhil, Mukes Sanwara and suffered injuri nominated as a of the co-accus

4. Le been falsely im THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR

CRM-M

Date of D lu

V/s ana

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKR Mr. Akanksh Choudhary, Advocat Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. *** GGARWAL, J (ORAL) rayer in the present petition p garik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fo ular bail to the petitioner in F der Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191 Station Nathu Sari Chopta, Dist ustody certificate filed by learn cord. On a complaint submitted by registered. The allegation was sh, Jagdish, Sethio, Raju and B his daughter-in-law with sticks ies as a result of which, he late an accused on the basis of disclo sed. earned counsel for the petitioner mplicated. He further submits tha JAB AND HARYANA RH M-33332-2026 Decision: 06.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondent RAM AGGARWAL te, for the petitioner. DAG, Haryana. preferred under Section 483 of for short the “BNSS”) is for the FIR No.108, dated 31.05.2025 1(3), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 61(2) trict Sirsa. ed State counsel in Court today one Rameshwar, the FIR in s that on 30.05.2025, Rohtash, Ballaram assaulted him, his son s, axe etc. His son Sanwara er expired. The petitioner was osure statements suffered by few r submits that the petitioner has at the petitioner was not named

f e

) y n , n a s w s

CRM-M-33332-2026

in the FIR; final report stands submitted; neither the complainant nor other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution; petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2025 and the co-accused Govind has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-33971-2026; the trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. He further submits that

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State of Haryana has opposed the bail petition. However, custody of 11 months and 18 days is stated to have been undergone by the petitioner as per the custody certificate filed in the Court today. As per the custody certificate, no other case stands registered against the petitioner.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

7. The petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2025. More than a year has elapsed. He was not named in the FIR. Still further, the complainant Rameshwar and the other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The statements of the said witnesses have been produced in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been perused. The antecedents of the petitioner are stated to be clean and he is not required in any other case. The case of the petitioner is at par as that of co-accused Govind, who has already been granted regular by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-33971-2026. The trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

CRM-M-33332-2026

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

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 06, 2026 vcgarg

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No