IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 235 Raj Kumar @Chotiwala State of Haryana [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 12.08.2024 103(1), 190, 191(3), 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. 2. 12.08.2024 on the came to know that a person, namely Raj Kumar, was admitted in injured condition in the hospital. In response to abovementioned information, when CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Raj Kumar @Chotiwala VERSUS Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Mr. Himanshu Garg and Mr. Navtej Singh Sra, Advocates for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No 12.08.2024, for the commission of of 103(1), 190, 191(3), 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that on 12.08.2024 on the basis of an information sent by Medical Officer, police came to know that a person, namely Raj Kumar, was admitted in injured condition in the hospital. In response to abovementioned information, when (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.07.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Mr. Himanshu Garg and Mr. Navtej Singh Sra, Advocates for the complainant. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.196 dated for the commission of offence punishable under Section 103(1), 190, 191(3), 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Bhattu Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that on basis of an information sent by Medical Officer, police came to know that a person, namely Raj Kumar, was admitted in injured condition in the hospital. In response to abovementioned information, when (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated fence punishable under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(3), 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Bhattu Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that on basis of an information sent by Medical Officer, police came to know that a person, namely Raj Kumar, was admitted in injured condition in the hospital. In response to abovementioned information, when GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the police officials, visited the hospital it was found unfit for making statement. 3. recorded the statement of ‘Virender’ son of Rameshwar Singh, hereinafter being referred as Singh resident of Bhattu Kalan had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ his brother, namely the return of money return money unless asked by According to complainant, his brother ‘Mahipal’ to return the money brother ‘Ami 4. brother ‘Amit that he was called in college ground Bhattu Kalan by Kumar’ and he got suspicious and, therefore, followed his brother about 6.40 P.M. when he reached near railway line Bhattu Kalan, he noticed that his brother was in the grip of per above and he ca kill him. It was further stated by the complainant that calling for help in loud voice and, therefore, the passerby intervened and CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) 2 the police officials, visited the hospital it was found unfit for making statement. In the abovementioned circumstances, the police official recorded the statement of ‘Virender’ son of Rameshwar Singh, hereinafter being referred as ‘complainant’ only, who stated that ‘Mahipal’ son of Sheo Singh resident of Bhattu Kalan had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ his brother, namely ‘Amit’, about two years ago and when the return of money, ‘Mahipal’ refused to return by saying that h return money unless asked by ‘Raj Kumar According to complainant, his brother ‘Amit ‘Mahipal’ to return the money, but an Amit’, ‘Raj Kumar’, ‘Mahipal’ and It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.08.2024 Amit’ came home from Dabwali and immediately left by saying that he was called in college ground Bhattu Kalan by and ‘Vishal’, for the payment of money. According to complainant, he got suspicious and, therefore, followed his brother about 6.40 P.M. when he reached near railway line Bhattu Kalan, he noticed that his brother was in the grip of ‘Vishal e-named complainant, the petitioner aused injuries on the person of his brother kill him. It was further stated by the complainant that ling for help in loud voice and, therefore, the passerby intervened and (O&M) 2 the police officials, visited the hospital it was found that the injured was In the abovementioned circumstances, the police official recorded the statement of ‘Virender’ son of Rameshwar Singh, hereinafter only, who stated that ‘Mahipal’ son of Sheo Singh resident of Bhattu Kalan had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from , about two years ago and when ‘Amit’ asked for refused to return by saying that he would not Raj Kumar’ (the petitioner herein) Amit’ requested ‘Raj Kumar’ to ask argument took place between his and ‘Vishal’. It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.08.2024, came home from Dabwali and immediately left by saying that he was called in college ground Bhattu Kalan by ‘Mahipal’, ‘Raj , for the payment of money. According to complainant, he got suspicious and, therefore, followed his brother ‘Amit’, and that at about 6.40 P.M. when he reached near railway line Bhattu Kalan, he noticed shal’, ‘Mahipal’ and ‘Raj Kumar’. the petitioner was holding a knife in his hand injuries on the person of his brother ‘Amit’ with intentions to kill him. It was further stated by the complainant that ‘Amit’ was crying & ling for help in loud voice and, therefore, the passerby intervened and that the injured was In the abovementioned circumstances, the police official recorded the statement of ‘Virender’ son of Rameshwar Singh, hereinafter only, who stated that ‘Mahipal’ son of Sheo from asked for e would not ’ (the petitioner herein). requested ‘Raj Kumar’ to ask argument took place between his his came home from Dabwali and immediately left by saying Raj , for the payment of money. According to complainant, , and that at about 6.40 P.M. when he reached near railway line Bhattu Kalan, he noticed As was holding a knife in his hand with intentions to was crying & ling for help in loud voice and, therefore, the passerby intervened and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document shifted ‘Amit the spot. 5. certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 6. 7. petitioner that the petitioner of more than one year and ten months slow pace, future. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that changes in p Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the primary foundation for the dismissal of former bail there were several cases pending against him. Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner stands acquitted and therefore, the abovementioned ground for rejection of bail petition does not 8. petitioner that otherwise also, the instant case is a case of version and cross version, wherein the cross police, but the police has not taken any action primar the assailant/accused in the cross CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) 3 Amit’ to hospital whereas the assailants manage to run away from The learned State Counsel has filed certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and ten months, and that the trial is taking place at a slow pace, and therefore, the same is n future. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, there changes in prevailing circumstances. With regard to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the primary foundation for the dismissal of former bail petition there were several cases pending against him. Counsel for the petitioner, by now in all the abovementioned cases, the petitioner stands acquitted and therefore, the abovementioned ground for rejection of bail petition does not survive It has been further contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the instant case is a case of version and cross version, wherein the cross-version was also reported by the petitioner police, but the police has not taken any action primar the assailant/accused in the cross-case (O&M) 3 assailants manage to run away from The learned State Counsel has filed reply as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the has already suffered incarceration for a period , and that the trial is taking place at a not likely to be concluded in near future. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, there revailing circumstances. With regard to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the primary foundation petition, filed by the petitioner, was that there were several cases pending against him. According to learned Senior by now in all the abovementioned cases, the petitioner stands acquitted and therefore, the abovementioned ground for at all. contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the instant case is a case of version and cross was also reported by the petitioner, to the police, but the police has not taken any action primarily on the ground that has passed away. As per learned assailants manage to run away from custody It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the has already suffered incarceration for a period , and that the trial is taking place at a likely to be concluded in near future. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, there are revailing circumstances. With regard to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the primary foundation was that According to learned Senior by now in all the abovementioned cases, the petitioner stands acquitted and therefore, the abovementioned ground for contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the instant case is a case of version and cross- to the that As per learned GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in fact the deceased himself was carrying a knife and he approached the petitioner in the playground, where the petitioner of deceased when a clash took place between the petitioner and the deceased, the deceased attacked the petitioner with a knife, but the petitioner being a sportsperson having better physiqu from causing any injury on the person of injury was caused on the person of deceased, who unfortunately passed away. To support his version, has referred to the photographs petitioner. 9. complainant, contended by learned learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner been closed by the police, merely on the ground that cross-version has passed away. As per learned couns in fact a verification and investigation 10. the petitioner has long history of crim petitioner can be faced by the petitioner, the witnesses have turned hostile. acquittal of petitioner in the other cases CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) 4 Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in fact the deceased himself was carrying a knife and he approached the petitioner in the playground, where the petitioner was practicing along with his co of deceased when a clash took place between the petitioner and the deceased, the deceased attacked the petitioner with a knife, but the petitioner being a sportsperson having better physiqu from causing any injury on the person of was caused on the person of deceased, who unfortunately passed away. To support his version, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the photographs showing petitioner. The learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. contended by learned counsel for the complainant that learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner been closed by the police, merely on the ground that version has passed away. As per learned couns in fact a Daily Diary Report has been recorded by the police verification and investigation, that the cross The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the petitioner has long history of criminal cases, and that petitioner can be gauged from the fact that in almost all the cases, being faced by the petitioner, the witnesses have turned hostile. acquittal of petitioner in the other cases h (O&M) 4 Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in fact the deceased himself was carrying a knife and he approached the petitioner in the playground, where the was practicing along with his co-players, and that at the instance of deceased when a clash took place between the petitioner and the deceased, the deceased attacked the petitioner with a knife, but the petitioner being a sportsperson having better physique and built, stopped the deceased from causing any injury on the person of petitioner and in self-defence, was caused on the person of deceased, who unfortunately passed the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner showing stab-wounds suffered by The learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been counsel for the complainant that this plea taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not true that cross-version has been closed by the police, merely on the ground that the accused in the version has passed away. As per learned counsel for the complainant, has been recorded by the police, after due that the cross-version is not true. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that inal cases, and that conduct of the gauged from the fact that in almost all the cases, being faced by the petitioner, the witnesses have turned hostile. The factum of has not been specifically denied by Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in fact the deceased himself was carrying a knife and he approached the petitioner in the playground, where the at the instance of deceased when a clash took place between the petitioner and the deceased, the deceased attacked the petitioner with a knife, but the petitioner , stopped the deceased defence, was caused on the person of deceased, who unfortunately passed the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner the The learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the It has been this plea taken by the version has the accused in the el for the complainant, after due The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that conduct of the gauged from the fact that in almost all the cases, being he factum of not been specifically denied by GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the learned counsel for the complainant, but complainant if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses. 11. has also contended that in fact, in the present case the weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and it was a long approxima individual. While claiming that there is no change in circumstances date of dismissal complainant 12. 13. here that version vis present pe been dealt with in the former time of deciding the 14. there is change in material circumstances. However, the contents of bail petition nowhere shows that there has been existing circumstances, which second bail petition. CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) 5 the learned counsel for the complainant, but complainant if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to influence the tnesses. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that in fact, in the present case the weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and it was a long ately 20cm long, which is not a normal knife individual. While claiming that there is no change in circumstances date of dismissal of former bail petition, the learned counsel for the complainant has sought for dismissal of present petition. The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that the plea raised by the petitioner vis-à-vis self-defence, are not relevant in the present petition, etition is the second petition for bail. All been dealt with in the former bail petition or it should have been taken at the deciding the former petition only. At this stage, the petition for bail there is change in material circumstances. However, the contents of bail petition nowhere shows that there has been existing circumstances, which may render second bail petition. Even the period of incarceration (O&M) 5 the learned counsel for the complainant, but as per learned counsel for the complainant if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to influence the In addition to above, the learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that in fact, in the present case the weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and it was a long khukhri a normal knife being carried by an individual. While claiming that there is no change in circumstances from the of former bail petition, the learned counsel for the dismissal of present petition. sed carefully. In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention raised by the petitioner, with regard to version and cross are not relevant in the present petition, as for bail. All such pleas have either bail petition or it should have been taken at the former petition only. the petition for bail can be entertained only, if there is change in material circumstances. However, the contents of bail petition nowhere shows that there has been any significant change in render the petitioner eligible to file the Even the period of incarceration from the date of as per learned counsel for the complainant if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to influence the In addition to above, the learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that in fact, in the present case the weapon of offence has khukhri, being carried by an from the of former bail petition, the learned counsel for the In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention with regard to version and cross- the pleas have either bail petition or it should have been taken at the only, if there is change in material circumstances. However, the contents of bail change in igible to file the from the date of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dismissal of former bail petition is not large enough to draw an inference that the progress in trial is at slow pace. 15. consideration the cumulative effect of above held that petitioner, hereby dismissed 16. shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. 17. disposed of, accordingly. 06.07.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-25521-2026 (O&M) 6 dismissal of former bail petition is not large enough to draw an inference that the progress in trial is at slow pace. As a sequel to above-mentioned consideration the cumulative effect of above held that the present petition, which is second petition for bail filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable and deserves dismissed, accordingly. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 6 dismissal of former bail petition is not large enough to draw an inference mentioned discussions and taking into consideration the cumulative effect of above-discussed factors, it is hereby the present petition, which is second petition for bail filed by the is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. Hence, the same However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No dismissal of former bail petition is not large enough to draw an inference discussions and taking into it is hereby the present petition, which is second petition for bail filed by the dismissal. Hence, the same is However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document