CRA-S-230 IN 220 Pawan Kum v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. registered a 190, 192(2) and Schedu SC/ST Act” of bail. 2. taken from affidavit of Bhiwani:- 230-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA n Kumar of Haryana and another AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate Mr. Vishal Singh, Assistant Ad **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Appellant, an accused in cas tered against him under Sections 3(5), 192(2), 193(3), 351(2) of BNS and Se Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atro T Act”), at Police Station Tosham, has Relevant facts necessary for from para 2 of the status report d vit of Dalip Singh, Deputy Superinten - “2. On 13.02.2025, a ruqq Tosham from Civil Hospital, 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRA-S-230-2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 …Appellant. …Respondents. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. vocate for the appellant. tant Advocate General, Haryana. in case FIR No. 56 dated 13.02.202 3(5), 103(1), 110, 109(2), 115, 117(2 nd Section 3(21)(v) of Scheduled Cas f Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “th , has filed the present appeal for gra ry for disposal of present appeal port dated 16.2.2026 filed by way o erintendent of Police, Tosham, Distri uqqa was received in Police Statio ital, Tosham that Dilbag, son of Sh .2026 ents. .2025, 117(2), ed Caste ort “the or grant are way of District tation, f Sher GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 230-2026 -2 Singh, Sandeep son of Surend Sher Singh have sustained inj Suresh 50 along with consta Civil Hospital, Tosham and co of MLR is annexed herewith Suresh called to injured at m injured told that they are ad Upon which SI Suresh 50 a reached at Jindal Hospital, Hi taken regarding injured Dilba injured Dharambir is unfit for fit for statement. Then Dilbag statement: I am Dilbag son of aged 57 years mobile No. resident of above mentioned agriculture. We are 4 broth situated at Hansi Road, Tos namely Dharambir are living son of Surender resident of Ba goats and my brother Dhara lives with us in night. That o 6.00 PM was grazing goats in entered into the farm of Ra appellant), Sunna son of Raj and fight with Sandeep, gav derogatory word ‘Dhed’ and 2- render Singh and Dharambir son d injuries in a fight. Upon which, nstable Naveen No. 300 reached nd collected MLR’s of inured. A cop with as Annexure R1. After that at mobile number 9138479553 an e admitted in Jindal Hospital Hisa 50 along with other police officia l, Hisar. There opinion of doctor wa bag and Dharambir. Doctor opine it for statement and injured Dilbag lbag deposed his stated and as per h n of Sher Singh resident of Baganw No. 8685817800, stated that I a ioned address and do the work rothers, farms of all 4 brothers a Tosham Bypass. I and my broth ing in a room at our farms. Sandee of Baganwal graze his 30 goats, my harambir’s 5 goats in farms and h hat on dated 12.02.2025 time aroun ts in farms. Out of which 4 or 5 goa f Raja upon which Pawan (prese Raja, Raja son of Kishan Lal cam gave injuries, used the caste base and abused him. After that we sa son of ich, SI hed in copy hat SI 3 and Hisar. ficials or was pined bag is er his anwal I am rk of rs are rother ndeep , my 5 nd he round goats resent came based e saw GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 Bijender, s arrested o involvemen offence, wh 230-2026 -3 them giving beating to Sande spot there Bijender son of Ra he started hitting me and m injuries to us. Then Pawan started hitting us with Lathi an the farm and hit me (Dilbag) Vikas hospitalized us in Civil referred me and my brother treatment we did not went to of that we got hospitalized in treatment is going on. Bijend Pony, Sunna son of Raja, Raja of Mahender, all residents of B Sandeep, Dharambir and also away. Strict legal action be t of ruqqa, MLR’s and injured 110, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115 be committed. Accordingly, under Sections 110, 190, 191( was registered at Police Statio During the course of interr , son of Ramesh, Anil @ Sinha, ted on 15.2.2025. During interrog lvement in the commission of offence ce, which were taken into possession. 3- ndeep, I and Dharambir came at th f Ramesh Kumar was holding a lath nd my brothr Dharambir and gav wan (A), Sunna, Raja and Satyawa hi and Pawan (A) picked up Axe fro bag) with his axe. After that my so ivil Hospital, Tosham. There docto her to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani. Fo t to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani. Instea d in Jindal Hospital, Hsiar, here ou ijender son of Ramesh, Pawan (A) @ Raja son of Kishan Lal, Satyawan so s of Baganwal hit me and my brothe also threatened us to kill us and ru be taken against them. On the bas red statement a crime under section , 115(2), 351(2) of BNS was found gly, a FIR No. 56 dated 13.02.202 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2) of BN tation, Tosham.” interrogation, present appellant an Sinha, all residents of Baganwal we terrogation, they confessed to the fence and got recovered the weapons o ssion. at the lathi, gave yawan e from y son doctor . For nstead re our ) @ an son others d run basis ctions und to .2025 f BNS and al were their pons of GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 Caste Cert Accordingl Dilbag and which one suffered by namely, Dh declared hi that he had BNS was a was declare allegation l the inciden were frame and Section present app 103(1) of B conducted regard to th pathology follows:- 230-2026 -4 One of the injured Sandeep e Certificate, which was taken into rdingly, Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST A Medical opinion with regard ag and Sandeep were obtained. Dilba h one was declared ‘Grievous in na red by Sandeep were declared to be ‘S ly, Dharambir (since deceased) could red him medically “Unfit”. X-ray, he had suffered fracture, resultantly, was added. One of the injuries, i.e. in declared ‘Dangerous to life’. Investigating Officer did n ation levelled by complainant party th cident, who was accordingly, kept in c On culmination of investiga amed under Sections 109(2), 110, 1 Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act again nt appellant. Unfortunately, one of injured 1) of BNS was added. Though the P ucted, but the Board of Doctors did d to the case of death. Later based o logy report, the final cause of deat 4- ndeep Kumar presented his Schedule into possession vide separate mem /ST Act was added. egard to nature of injuries suffered b Dilbag had suffered 3 injuries, out o in nature’, whereas all the 3 injurie o be ‘Simple’. Statement of 3rd injure ) could not be recorded as Doctor ha ray, MLR of injured Dilbag reveale tantly, offence under Section 117(2) o i.e. injury No.2, suffered by Dharamb did not find any substance in th arty that Satyawan was also involved ept in column No.2 of chalan. vestigation, challan was filed, charge 110, 115, 117(2), 3(5), 351(2) of BN t against the accused persons includin jured Dharambir passed away. Sectio he Post Mortem Examination was g rs did not give any final opinion wi ased on the forensic analysis report an f death of Dharambir was opined heduled memo. ered by , out of injuries injured, had revealed 17(2) of arambir in the olved in charges of BNS cluding Section was got on with port and ined as GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 learned Ad dismissed appeal has 3. of the doc appellant an “Aggressor of appellan action was case set up MLR also injured wer by complai injury attrib in nature’. Anil @ Sin of 18 cited the likeliho 230-2026 -5 “cause of death in this case is its complications accompanie weakened body as described in Resultantly, Section 103 (1) B Appellant-accused moved an a ed Additional Sessions Judge, Bhi issed vide order dated 18.8.2025. A al has been filed. Learned counsel for the appe e documents placed on case file, llant and other accused clearly reveal t ressor” and had initiated the assault b pellant, who had also filed a complai n was initiated on the same. It is further the submission of set up by complainant party is appa also does not corroborate his stand ed were opined to have been caused w Learned counsel fairly contend mplainant are taken to be true at their y attributed to the present appellant h ture’. Injury declared as ‘Dangerous @ Sinha. The next leg of submission rai cited prosecution witnesses, only 5 h ikelihood of completion of trial in the 5- se is hepatopulmonary pathology an anied by septicemia over the alread ed in the postmortem examination.” (1) BNS was deleted. ed an application for grant of bail befo , Bhiwani. The same came to b 25. Aggrieved of which, the prese appellant contends that a bare perus as in, the disclosure statement o eveal that the complainant party was sault by inflicting injuries on the perso omplaint with police authorities, but n ion of learned counsel that falsity of th s apparent from the fact that even th stand, as none of injuries suffered b sed with sharp edged weapon. ontends that even if allegations levelle eir face value (though not admitted llant has been declared to be ‘Grievou erous to life’ is attributed to co-accuse ion raised by learned counsel is that o ly 5 have been examined till date, thu the near future is quite remote. Whe y and lready on.” il before to be present perusal ment of was the e person , but no ty of the ven the ered by levelled mitted), rievous accused that out , thus, e. When GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 appreciated counsel pra who is a p taken in hi useful purp Article 21 would also incarcerati made. 4. State coun unleashed apart from submission likelihood in Court been exam for. 5. documents 6. State of W 04.10.2024 IPC, Hon’b incarceratio 230-2026 -6 eciated in light of the submissions l prays that appellant, who has been is a person of clean past antecedent in his favour, for his (A) further in l purpose as the same would not onl 21 of the Constitution of India, also be against the principle of eration is an exception”. Prayer Per contra, while opposing the counsel contends that appellant al shed an attack on the complainant from using derogatory words in the ission of learned State counsel that if ihood of appellant fleeing from the pr and overawing complainant and examined till date is quite high. Dism Heard learned counsel for ments on record. In the case of Rup Bahadur of West Bengal, Criminal Appea .2024, in a case under Sections 394, 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail ceration undergone by him of 2 years a 6- ssions advanced hereinabove, learne as been in custody since 15.2.2025 an cedents, deserves a lenient view to ther incarceration would not serve an only be violative of his rights und including right to speedy trial of “Bail is a general rule an for allowing the appeal has bee the request for grant of bail, learne along with his other accomplice party and seriously injured them the name of ‘Caste’. It is further if granted the concession of bail, process of justice by not appearin and related witnesses, who have ismissal of appeal has been praye the parties and have perused adur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin V ppeal No.4144 of 2024 decided o 394, 395, 397, 307 read with 120-B o d bail to the accused considering lon years and 9 months. learned 025 and be rve any under but and been learned mplices them, the the pearing not prayed the in Vs. ided on B of ng long GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 Maharasht granting ba under:- 7. have been referred to subsequent @ Sinha. case of pro 230-2026 -7 In the case of Javed Gula rashtra and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC ting bail to accused for 04 years in p “16. Criminals are not born b everyone is good and so, neve redemption. This humanist fu dealing with delinquents, juve has a past and every sinn committed, a variety of facto offender commit the crime. T economic, may be, the resu neglect; may be, because of th manifestation of temptations i with indigence or other privati 17. If the State or any p court concerned has no wher fundamental right of an acc enshrined under Article 21 of any other prosecuting agency bail on the ground that the cr 21 of the Constitution applies crime.” Factual aspects of the case lea been noticed hereinabove. In the sta to in para 2 of this order, it equently declared as ‘Dangerous to life Though unfortunately one of the of prosecution, the said injured did n 7- Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State o CC 813, the Supreme Court whi rs in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 held a orn but made. The human potential never write off any criminal as beyon st fundamental is often missed whe juvenile and adult. Indeed, every sai sinner a future. When a crime factors is responsible for making th e. Those factors may be social an result of value erosion or parent of the stress of circumstances, or th ns in a milieu of affluence contraste ivations. y prosecuting agency including th herewithal to provide or protect th accused to have a speedy trial a 1 of the Constitution then the State o ency should not oppose the plea fo e crime committed is serious. Artic plies irrespective of the nature of th leading to the registration of the FI status report filed by the State, it has been specified that injur life’ is attributed to co-accused An of the injured died later, but as per th did not die as a consequence of injur ate of rt while held as tial in eyond when y saint me is ng the l and rental or the rasted g the ct the ial as tate or ea for rticle of the FIR tate, as injury Anil per the f injury GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 suffered by deleted. merits of petitioner, criminal ca lenient vie completion prosecution further inca under Artic but would incarcerati Dataram (Criminal) 8. to his furn Court/Duty conditions: 230-2026 -8 red by him in the incident. Accordin Be that as it may, without fur the case, lest it may prejudice ioner, whose past antecedents are clean cases and who has been in cust view to be taken in his favour, letion of trial in the near future ap cution witnesses, only 5 have been ex er incarceration of appellant would Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind would also be against the principle eration is an exception” as held vs. State of Uttar Pradesh inal) 131. Resultantly, appellant is grant is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The appe itions:- (i) The appellant will not the trial. (ii) The appellant will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall su learned trial Court and shal prior permission of the trial C 8- cordingly, Section 103(1) of BNS w further commenting anything on the trial, considering the fact th clean; not being involved in any oth custody since 15.2.2025, deserves vour, moreso when the likelihood appears bleak; as out of 18 cite examined till date, in this scenari not only be violative of his righ India, including right to speedy tri ciple of “Bail is a general rule an held by Hon’ble Supreme Court esh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R s granted the concession of bail subje s to the satisfaction of learned tri e appellant shall abide by the followin not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th ll surrender his passport before th shall not leave the country witho al Court. was the that other serves a hood of cited cenario, rights trial and in R.C.R. subject ed trial llowing during e the re the ithout GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-230 9. that in case at liberty to 10. herein are l construed a independen 24.03.2026 gbs 230-2026 -9 (iv) The appellant shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The appellant shall no induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The appellant shall not (vii) The appellant shall f number to the Trial Court fo same till the conclusion of the the appellant seeks to change shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The appellant will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed appropri Accordingly, the present appe in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as gran In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 9- l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth ropriate while releasing the appellan t appeal is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b as granted to the appellant by this orde t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No to the which oerce, ith the g such ith the berty. obile ge the eason, same Trial n each der of other ellant. de clear shall be is order. ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document