237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23430-2025 Date of Decision:05.08.2025 Pankaj …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. On oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 3(5) of B.N.S is ordered to be added in the headnote as well as in the prayer clause of the main petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the Court today itself. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No. 421, dated 31.10.2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 117(4), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(6), 351(2), 238C and 3(5) of B.N.S, Police Station City Rewari, District Rewari. HITESH 2025.08.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-23430-2025 -2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, both the sides had suffered injuries and it is a case of version and cross version. He further contends that Devwart, Kanwar Singh and Sanjay had suffered injuries on the side of the complainant, whereas, Tulsi Ram had suffered injuries on the side of the present petitioner. Even it has been alleged that the accused in the present case had thrown bricks and stones on the complainant side and apparently, it was a case of scuffle between two sides of villagers. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 18.12.2024 and challan has already been presented against him. Out of total 22 witnesses no witness has been examined so far. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail. Even, the petitioner is involved in one more case of NDPS Act. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. In the present case, Devwart, Kanwar Singh and Sanjay had suffered injuries on the side of the complainant, whereas, Tulsi Ram had suffered injuries in the cross version. Thus, question of aggressor is yet to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. At this stage, this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is continuing in custody for the last about 08 months and the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. HITESH 2025.08.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-23430-2025 -3 8. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 05.08.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.08.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh