IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 250 1. CRM-M-28089-2025 Date of decision: 17.07.2025 Jeevan .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent 2. CRM-M-28138-2025 Date of decision: 17.07.2025 Shekhar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners are seeking the concession of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.59 dated 28.02.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5) (Sections 118(2), 238(b) added lateron) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while petitioner Shekhar has been in custody since 20.02.2025, petitioner Jeevan has been in custody since 08.04.2025. While drawing the VINAY 2025.07.17 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-28089-2025 & CRM-M-28138-2025 attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR, it has been submitted that totally false and exaggerated allegations have been levelled against the petitioners of having attacked complainant Rinku and Vishal. It has been submitted that although as per the allegations, petitioner Shekhar inflicted a knife injury on the forehead of injured Vishal, however, the said injury was opined to be simple in nature. Qua petitioner Jeevan it has been submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, he was unarmed and only inflicted kick and fist blows on the complainant party. 3. On a pointed query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents. A prayer has, therefore, been made to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner since investigation in the present case is complete and the challan is yet to be presented. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR which is annexed as Annexure P-1. Learned State counsel, on instructions, however, has not been able to refute that the injury attributed to petitioner Shekhar was a simple injury; he nevertheless submits that since injured Vishal failed to get his X-ray done, therefore, there was no definite opinion regarding the nature of injury. Qua the role attributed to petitioner Jeevan, learned State counsel, on instructions, has fairly submitted that he was unarmed and has been attributed only fist and kick blows. Learned State counsel, on further instructions, has also not VINAY 2025.07.17 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-28089-2025 & CRM-M-28138-2025 controverted that both the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. Petitioners Jeevan and Shekhar have been in custody since 08.04.2025 and 20.02.2025 respectively. Challan stands presented against the petitioners. The possibility of the trial concluding in the near future seems unlikely with charges not yet framed and as many as 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove moreso when both the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Needless to add, in case the petitioners misuse the concession of bail granted to them, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. 17.07.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2025.07.17 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment