CRM-M-36662-2025 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36662-2025 Reserved on: 1st September, 2025 Pronounced on: 10 th September, 2025 Sahil Saini @ Dhanda ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 215 dated 17.07.2024 registered under Sections 109(1), 110, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Quilla, Panipat, District Panipat, Haryana. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Deepak Verma, alleging that on 17.07.2024, he along with his friend Yash was going towards his house after attending some function. At about 1:00 AM, when they reached in Rajiv colony, Panipat, suddenly, they were intercepted by the petitioner and the co-accused, who were riding on a bike and who hit the bike of the Parveen Sharma 2025.09.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36662-2025 2- complainant with their vehicle due to which they had fallen down. Out of fear, his friend Yash had fled from the spot. The petitioner who was nursing a grudge against the complainant along with the co-accused opened an attack upon him with the weapons which all of them were carrying and caused him several injuries. Clamour raised by him attracted the neighbours. In the meanwhile, his siblings had also reached at the spot and then the assailants fled while extending threats to kill him. The complainant was rushed to the hospital and was under treatment. Initially, a case under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 110, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS was registered. Subsequently on receipt of the medical opinion, offence under Section 109(1) of BNS was added. The petitioner and co-accused were arrested on 19.07.2024. They were interrogated and suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been in custody for a long time. No specific injury has been attributed to him. There is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. The material witnesses namely Deepak Sharma, complainant, eyewitness-Yash and Naveen have not implicated him in the commission of subject crime. Trial will take time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in another case is also not a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the Parveen Sharma 2025.09.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36662-2025 3- petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has gone through the record carefully. 6. The petitioner has placed on record Annexures P-4 to P-6, which are copies of statements of the complainant and other material witnesses, respectively. A perusal of the same reveals that neither of them has implicated the petitioner in commission of the subject offences. The complainant and eyewitnesses are shown to have stated that the petitioner and other arraigned accused were not the persons, who had caused injuries to the complainant. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.07.2024. Keeping in view the nature of the evidence which has come on record, the period of his incarceration and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment upon the merits of the case lest the the same prejudice the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 10 th September, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.09.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document