IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 235 DHEERAJ @ DUDHIYA STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 24.10.2024 under Sections Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure P- 2. has been falsely implicated in the instant allegations that he his relatives using sticks and iron rods. It is contended FIR reveals that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the alleged incid been further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 24 hours from the time of alleged occurrence. This delay had been used to fabricate a false IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of decision: May DHEERAJ @ DUDHIYA Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhinna, AAG, Haryana MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. The instant petition has been filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station -1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant allegations that he, along with the co-accused, assaulted the his relatives using sticks and iron rods. It is contended FIR reveals that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the alleged incident. While drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR, it has been further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of from the time of alleged occurrence. This delay had been used to a false and exaggerated version, as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -M-28425-2025 Date of decision: May 27, 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , Advocate Gagandeep Singh Chhinna, AAG, Haryana. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.239 dated 190, 191(2), 115(2), 351(2) and 110 of Bharatiya , registered at Police Station Rampura, District Rewari Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR (Annexure P-1) on the accused, assaulted the complainant and his relatives using sticks and iron rods. It is contended that a perusal of the FIR reveals that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the . While drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR, it has been further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of from the time of alleged occurrence. This delay had been used to rsion, as per the learned counsel, and Petitioner .....Respondent 483 of BNSS, dated 351(2) and 110 of Bharatiya Rewari submits that the petitioner on the complainant and that a perusal of the FIR reveals that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the . While drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR, it has been further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of from the time of alleged occurrence. This delay had been used to counsel, and Jaspreet Kaur 2025.05.28 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28425 therefore, casts serious doubt on the authenticity brought forth by 3. petitioner that identically placed anticipatory bail. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexures P accused Sohil Kumar and Manjit. since the petitioner petitioner be extended a similar relief. 4. submissions made by the counsel opposite levelled in the FIR, which stands reproduced hereinunder: 5. limited role attributed to the petitioner the custody period of the petitioner. It has also n instructions, that the Kumar and Manjit 6. relevant material place 7. would take considerable time to conclude The role attributed 28425-2025 therefore, casts serious doubt on the authenticity brought forth by the complainant. It has still further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.04.2025 identically placed co-accused have already been exten atory bail. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexures P-3 and P-4, which are the orders granting bail to co accused Sohil Kumar and Manjit. A prayer has, therefore, been made that petitioner is also at par with the above petitioner be extended a similar relief. Per contra, learned State counsel, submissions made by the counsel opposite and levelled in the FIR, which stands reproduced hereinunder: Learned State counsel, on instructions, limited role attributed to the petitioner nor has he, on instructions, disputed the custody period of the petitioner. It has also n instructions, that the petitioner is identically placed as co Kumar and Manjit, who have since been extended the concession of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record. The petitioner has been in custody since 18.04.2025 would take considerable time to conclude as charges are yet to be framed. attributed to the petitioner is limited to carrying an iron rod and -2- therefore, casts serious doubt on the authenticity and veracity of the version It has still further been submitted by learned counsel for the the petitioner has been in custody since 18.04.2025 and have already been extended the concession of atory bail. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this 4, which are the orders granting bail to co- A prayer has, therefore, been made that is also at par with the above-mentioned two accused, the , learned State counsel, has opposed the prayer and and has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR, which stands reproduced hereinunder: - Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed the nor has he, on instructions, disputed the custody period of the petitioner. It has also not been disputed, on petitioner is identically placed as co-accused Sohil , who have since been extended the concession of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the has been in custody since 18.04.2025. The trial as charges are yet to be framed. limited to carrying an iron rod and and veracity of the version It has still further been submitted by learned counsel for the and he concession of atory bail. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this - A prayer has, therefore, been made that mentioned two accused, the the prayer and reiterated the allegations disputed the nor has he, on instructions, disputed ot been disputed, on accused Sohil I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the . The trial as charges are yet to be framed. limited to carrying an iron rod and Jaspreet Kaur 2025.05.28 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28425 allegedly causing a simple injury. Manjit, who are identically pla extended the concession of bail. 8. Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as the trial would take considerable 9. be admitted to bail on the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10. shall not be construed to be an expression of op case. May 27, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur 28425-2025 allegedly causing a simple injury. Significantly, co Manjit, who are identically placed as the petitioner, have already been extended the concession of bail. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as the trial would take considerable time to conclude. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything shall not be construed to be an expression of op May 27, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- Significantly, co-accused Sohil Kumar and ced as the petitioner, have already been In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as time to conclude. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, and the petitioner furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No accused Sohil Kumar and ced as the petitioner, have already been In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as and the petitioner furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of observed hereinabove inion on the merits of the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.05.28 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh