IN THE 210 Harish State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for Ms. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 115, 126, Bharatiya Nyaya Sonipat, Haryana. 2. The of Rajesh, son of 10:00 p.m., when herein, along with adjoining the complainant’s act, an altercation petitioner, along During the course inflicted injuries allegations, the obtaining medical Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56527 Date of decision: VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Mohit, Ms. Pavitra, Mr. Sachin and the petitioner. Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.0264 dated 126, 3(5), 351(3) [Section 109(1) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Haryana. The FIR in the present case has been of Om Parkash. It has been stated when the complainant was present at with the other co-accused, started unloading complainant’s house. Upon the complainant altercation ensued between the parties. along with the co-accused, forcibly course of the incident, co-accused injuries on the head of the complainant. present FIR came to be registered. medical opinion, the offence under Section 2023, was added to the FIR. PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 56527-2025(O&M) decision: 27.01.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ and Mr. Bharat, Advocates filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 30.04.2025 registered under 109(1) added later on] of the Station Kharkhoda, District been registered on the complaint stated that on 28.04.2025, at about at his residence, the petitioner unloading bricks in the street complainant questioning the said It is further stated that the forcibly grabbed the complainant. accused Harish is stated to have complainant. On the basis of the said registered. Subsequently, upon Section 109 of the Bharatiya SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 210 CRM-M-56527-2025(O&M) 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that although four persons were initially named as accused in the FIR, during the course of investigation three of them were found to be innocent and were exonerated during the course of investigation. He thus submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that there has been a clear element of over-implication in the present case. It is contended that the opinion declaring the injury to be dangerous to life has not been obtained from a Government hospital, but from a private medical institution and that too after a delay of about 17 days from the date of the occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2025 and has already undergone an actual custody of more than 07 months. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time, inasmuch as only 01 out of the 14 prosecution witnesses cited has been examined so far. 4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the facts aforesaid, however, she contends that the injury attracting Section 109 BNS is attributed to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the respondent- complainant stands discharged and that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 6. Taking into consideration the period of actual custody already undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the allegations levelled against him, his clean antecedents, as well as the present stage of the trial, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 210 CRM-M-56527-2025(O&M) 7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 27.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document