CRM-M-42117-2025 -1- 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42117-2025 Date of Decision: 08.08.2025 Hardeep Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.158 dated 07.06.2024, under Sections 323, 324, 34, 341, 506 IPC (Section 307 IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind. 2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Rajat Kumar. It was alleged that on 05.06.2024 at about 10:00 PM, four boys, namely, Sandeep, Kamal, Hardeep (petitioner) and one unknown person, came to his house and opened attack on him with swords and gandasas. Sandeep gave two sword blows on the left leg of the complainant and Kamal gave gandasa blow on his right leg and Hardeep and the other boy gave kick and fist blows to him. On reaching of his uncle’s son and other people, they all fled away from there and threatened the complainant to be killed. The injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Safidon from where, he was referred to PGI Khanpur. It was alleged that due to past grudge involving Sandeep and his maternal uncle’s daughter, he was beaten by them. Request was made to SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.08 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-42117-2025 -2- take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and the petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 25.09.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM- M-53695-2024, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.11.2024. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Kamal. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 17.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-2655-2025, whereby, co-accused Kamal has been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2024. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner has been alleged to have given kicks and fists blow to the injured. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail. 4. Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Kamal. She submits that out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. She has SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.08 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-42117-2025 -3- placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 26.06.2024. Co-accused, namely, Kamal is on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with him. As submitted before this Court, out of 20 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till. As per the custody certificate of the petitioner, he has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 01 month & 11 days as on 07.08.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 6. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 7. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 08.08.2025 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.08 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC