CRM-M-38044 227 Amit Khatri @ Sethi State of Haryana Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. 1. dated 17.12.2025 under Sections 115, 11 324(4), 351(3), 61(2) and 111(2)(a) Station, Civil Line, District Sonipat, Haryana. Offen 117(2) and 111 is the first petition for regular bail. 2. the Court to depose against the co and beaten up by approximately 5/6 persons and was threatened not to depose again 3. not named in the FIR. His name figured in the disclosure statement of co 38044-2026 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Amit Khatri @ Sethi Versus State of Haryana Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG, Haryana *** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 370 dated 17.12.2025 under Sections 115, 112 324(4), 351(3), 61(2) and 111(2)(a) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Station, Civil Line, District Sonipat, Haryana. Offen 117(2) and 111(2)(a) BNS were added in the FIR during investigation. This e first petition for regular bail. It is alleged that on 17.12.2025, when complainant was going to the Court to depose against the co-accused namely Ankit, he was stopped and beaten up by approximately 5/6 persons and was threatened not to depose against the said co-accused namely Ankit, who Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR. His name figured in the disclosure statement of co 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38044-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondent Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal , Advocate Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG, Haryana. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 370 2(2), 126, 190, 191(3), 232(1), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station, Civil Line, District Sonipat, Haryana. Offence under Sections added in the FIR during investigation. This on 17.12.2025, when complainant was going to accused namely Ankit, he was stopped and beaten up by approximately 5/6 persons and was threatened not to accused namely Ankit, who was facing trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR. His name figured in the disclosure statement of co- 1 .07.2026 Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 370 (2), 126, 190, 191(3), 232(1), Police ce under Sections added in the FIR during investigation. This on 17.12.2025, when complainant was going to accused namely Ankit, he was stopped and beaten up by approximately 5/6 persons and was threatened not to Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was - KAPIL 2026.07.20 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38044 accused. No recovery was effected from him. Further, tha custody since Sitender similarly placed, had already been allowed regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 was complete and cha complainant were simple in nature. Petitioner was not involved in any other offence. He f the offence allegedly committed did not result in death o Petitioner, who ha bail. 4. on the ground that danda had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner indicating his in therefore, distinguishable from that of co Sitender. 5. accused on disclosure statement of co Siddhu and Sitender by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 M-29508-2026 06.06.2026 i.e. for the last completed and challan has been presented in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Mere involvement in one other case, is not sufficient reason to refuse bail. on the ground parity. 38044-2026 (O&M) accused. No recovery was effected from him. Further, tha custody since 06.06.2026. Co-accused namely Siddharth @ Siddhu similarly placed, had already been allowed regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 and 06.07.2026 was complete and challan was presented. complainant were simple in nature. Petitioner was not involved in any other He further submits that Section 111(2)(a) was wrongly invoked as offence allegedly committed did not result in death o Petitioner, who had clean antecedents, deserved to be enlarged on regular Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that danda had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner his involvement in the commission of offence. therefore, distinguishable from that of co-accused Siddharth @ Siddhu Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been nominated as accused on disclosure statement of co-accused. Co and Sitender similarly placed, have by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 and 06.07.2026 2026 and CRM-M-33927-2026. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. .2026 i.e. for the last 01 month and 11 days completed and challan has been presented in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Mere involvement in one other case, is not sufficient reason to refuse bail. Petitioner is entit on the ground parity. 2 accused. No recovery was effected from him. Further, that petitioner was in accused namely Siddharth @ Siddhu and similarly placed, had already been allowed regular bail by this and 06.07.2026. Investigation of the case llan was presented. All injuries suffered by the complainant were simple in nature. Petitioner was not involved in any other 111(2)(a) was wrongly invoked as offence allegedly committed did not result in death of any person. clean antecedents, deserved to be enlarged on regular Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that danda had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner volvement in the commission of offence. His case was, accused Siddharth @ Siddhu and Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been nominated as accused. Co-accused Siddharth @ since been allowed regular bail and 06.07.2026, passed in CRM- . Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 01 month and 11 days. Investigation stands completed and challan has been presented in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Mere involvement in one other case, is not etitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail 2 t petitioner was in and similarly placed, had already been allowed regular bail by this . Investigation of the case All injuries suffered by the complainant were simple in nature. Petitioner was not involved in any other 111(2)(a) was wrongly invoked as f any person. clean antecedents, deserved to be enlarged on regular Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that danda had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner His case was, and Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been nominated as cused Siddharth @ since been allowed regular bail - . Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. . Investigation stands completed and challan has been presented in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Mere involvement in one other case, is not grant of regular bail KAPIL 2026.07.20 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38044 6. case, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Court/Duty Magistrate 7. 20.07.2026 Kapil 38044-2026 (O&M) The petition is allowed. Without a comment on merits of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Court/Duty Magistrate Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3 etition is allowed. Without a comment on merits of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No 3 etition is allowed. Without a comment on merits of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his learned trial (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) KAPIL 2026.07.20 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document