IN THE 203 (02 cases) 1. CRA-S-982 Mandeep @ Joni State of Haryana 2. CRA-S-1665 Ramdhan @ Dinesh State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. in CRA Mr. for Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Both orders dated 02.03.2026 Judge, Jind respectively, the appellants had No.233 dated 30.06.2021 [Sections 302 and Section 3(2)(v) and (Prevention of Atrocities) at Police Station common order. The the SC/ST Act for THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-982 CRA-S-1665 Date of decision: 982-2026 Joni VERSUS Haryana and another 1665-2026 Dinesh VERSUS Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant(s) CRA-S-982-2026. Mr. Ashok K. Sharma with Ms. Suman the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1665-2026. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Both these appeals, having been preferred 02.03.2026 and 30.04.2026 passed respectively, whereby the applications had been dismissed arising out of 30.06.2021 registered under Sections and 201 added later on] of the Indian and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind, are The present appeals have been filed for grant of regular bail. PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 982-2026 (O&M) and 1665-2026 (O&M) decision: 22.05.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents ...Appellant ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ appellant(s) Suman Sharma, Advocates 2026. Haryana. preferred against the different passed by the Additional Sessions applications for grant of regular bail of of the same case bearing FIR Sections 506, 452, 323, 149, 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’) are hence being decided by a filed under Section 14A(2) of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 203 (02 cases) CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M) 2. For the facility of reference, brief facts are being referred to from CRA-S-982-2026 titled as “Mandeep @ Joni Vs. State of Haryana and another”. 3. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of respondent No.2-Ishwar son of Ami Lal to the effect that he was resident of Karkhana and was a labourer. He had three daughters and three sons. On 27.06.2021 at about 7.30 PM, he had returned from the nearby fields and was sitting in his courtyard. Arun, Gulshan (sons of Chand Ram), Joni son of Subhash, Ramdhan son of Oma, Ankit son of Bheera and Bishma son of Raldu came there. Gulshan son of Chand Ram who had an iron rod, inflicted iron rod blow on his head, Joni son of Subhash inflicted gandasi blow on his knees and Ramdhan, Ankit and Bhishma inflicted rod blows on his stomach. Since all the above said persons were drunkards, they took Rs.16000/- from his pocket and after leaving him in an unconscious condition, they fled away from the spot. While leaving, they threatened to kill him. After some time, his cousin Satyawan came to meet him. Ramesh son of Dharam Singh, Beenu son of Parkahasa and his cousin shifted him to Civil Hospital, Safidon from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. He thus prayed that strict legal action be taken against all the assailants but he passed away in PGIMS, Rohtak, as a result of his injuries. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contend that the appellants-Mandeep @ Joni (in CRA-S-982-2026) and Ramdhan @ Dinesh (in CRA-S-1665-2026) are in custody since 12.11.2022 and 30.09.2021 respectively and they have undergone an actual custody of more than 03 and a half years and 04 and a half years respectively. It is contended that there are still 10 prosecution witnesses to be examined. Learned counsel SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 203 (02 cases) CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M) for the appellant in CRA-S-1665-2026 submits that the appellant- Ramdhan @ Dinesh is attributed a rod blow on the stomach which such role is akin to co- accused Ankit to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in CRA-S-1985-2025. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA-S-982-2026 however contends that the death in question took place on account of perforation in the abdominal area and that the appellant-Mandeep @ Joni is not attributed any injury in the abdominal area, moreover, he is attributed a gandasi blow on the kness which resulted in fracture. It is contended that taking into consideration the period of long incarceration, other accused persons namely, Arun being granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 04.05.2026 passed in CRA-S-1480-2026 and co-accused Gulshan was granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 20.05.2026 passed in CRA-S-1729-2026. They contend that the case of the appellants would be on identical footing. 5. Learned State Counsel contends that there were 14 injuries on the person of the deceased. He further contends that co-accused Mandeep @ Joni had other cases registered against him and that he was convicted for an offence under Section 379 IPC. The period of custody as well as other submissions with respect to the stage of the trial and bail having been granted to other co-accused are however not disputed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present appeals. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the appellants as well as the stage of trial and noticing that the case of the appellants would be akin to the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 203 (02 cases) CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M) case of co-accused Ankit, Arun and Gulshan to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted, I deem it appropriate to allow the present appeals. 8. The instant appeals are allowed and the appellants are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 9. It is made clear that the appellants shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 22.05.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document