CRM-M-72763- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (108) MADAN PAL ALIAS MADAN STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Apoorv Garg, A **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) CRM-24019-2026 1. Application for placing on record is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the document annexed with the application placed on record as Annexure P4. CRM-M-72763- 1. The 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(3), 238 of short “BNS”) at Police Station Ballabgarh Sadar, District Faridabad. -2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MADAN PAL ALIAS MADAN PANCHAL Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 2026 Application for placing on record is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the document annexed with the application placed on record as Annexure P4. -2025 The instant petition has been filed 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.287 dated 19.08.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(3), 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for at Police Station Ballabgarh Sadar, District Faridabad. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-72763-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner AG, Haryana Application for placing on record is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the document annexed with the application is ordered to be filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 287 dated 19.08.2024 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for at Police Station Ballabgarh Sadar, District Faridabad. (O&M) 2026 .. Petitioner ...Respondent Application for placing on record is allowed subject to all just ordered to be ction for grant 287 dated 19.08.2024 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72763- 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant alongwith his uncle Bechan Shah used to do labour work i Mirzapur, Faridabad run by Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani from the last 2 On 18.10.2024, his uncle Bechan Shah and himself had asked the partners of the plant to settle their dues as they have to visit their native village on the o of Raksha Bandhan. The partners gave an amount of Rs.29,000/ uncle and himself though much more amount was due. A verbal altercation had taken place between them and then the partners Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani called some employees/lab opened assault upon the complainant and his maternal uncle. The complainant managed to flee, but the assailants kept on assaulting his uncle who succumbed to the injuries sustained at their hands. A proceedings were initiated. The post conducted. Accused Ramesh Tiwary and Rajesh who were partners of the plant were arrested. The present petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 05.01.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement got recovered an iron rod used at the time of occurrence. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He -2025 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written nt submitted by the complainant-Amit Kumar alleging therein that he alongwith his uncle Bechan Shah used to do labour work i Mirzapur, Faridabad run by Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani from the last 2 On 18.10.2024, his uncle Bechan Shah and himself had asked the partners of the plant to settle their dues as they have to visit their native village on the o of Raksha Bandhan. The partners gave an amount of Rs.29,000/ uncle and himself though much more amount was due. A verbal altercation had taken place between them and then the partners Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani called some employees/labourers of their plant, who alongwith some other persons opened assault upon the complainant and his maternal uncle. The complainant managed to flee, but the assailants kept on assaulting his uncle who succumbed to the injuries sustained at their hands. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The post-mortem of dead body of the victim was conducted. Accused Ramesh Tiwary and Rajesh who were partners of the plant were arrested. They suffered disclosure statement present petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 05.01.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement got recovered an iron rod used at the time of occurrence. Investigation now oncluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Amit Kumar alleging therein that he alongwith his uncle Bechan Shah used to do labour work in RMC Plant, Village Mirzapur, Faridabad run by Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani from the last 2-3 months. On 18.10.2024, his uncle Bechan Shah and himself had asked the partners of the plant to settle their dues as they have to visit their native village on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. The partners gave an amount of Rs.29,000/- only to his uncle and himself though much more amount was due. A verbal altercation had taken place between them and then the partners Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani called who alongwith some other persons opened assault upon the complainant and his maternal uncle. The complainant managed to flee, but the assailants kept on assaulting his uncle who succumbed fter registration of FIR, investigation mortem of dead body of the victim was conducted. Accused Ramesh Tiwary and Rajesh who were partners of the plant suffered disclosure statements on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 05.01.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered an iron rod used at the time of occurrence. Investigation now It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Amit Kumar alleging therein that he n RMC Plant, Village 3 months. On 18.10.2024, his uncle Bechan Shah and himself had asked the partners of the ccasion only to his uncle and himself though much more amount was due. A verbal altercation had taken place between them and then the partners Ramesh Tiwari and Gyani called who alongwith some other persons opened assault upon the complainant and his maternal uncle. The complainant managed to flee, but the assailants kept on assaulting his uncle who succumbed fter registration of FIR, investigation mortem of dead body of the victim was conducted. Accused Ramesh Tiwary and Rajesh who were partners of the plant of which the present petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 05.01.2025. the crime and got recovered an iron rod used at the time of occurrence. Investigation now It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been - accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72763- was not named have since been examined and none of them have supported the prosecution version. The co extended benefit of bail. On parity, the petitio same benefit. His antecedents are clean. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody an therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2025. Only 03 out of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined and none of them has implicated the petitioner in the commission of the subject offences. Similarly situated co accused have been extended benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which has c material witnesses, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and on parity but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, prejudice the trial in any manner, the petition is a -2025 (O&M) 3 was not named in the FIR. The complainant and two material eye have since been examined and none of them have supported the prosecution version. The co-accused Ramesh Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar and extended benefit of bail. On parity, the petitioner deserves to be extended the same benefit. His antecedents are clean. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody an therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail and the petition deserves to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2025. Only 03 out of 35 tion witnesses have been examined and none of them has implicated the petitioner in the commission of the subject offences. Similarly situated co accused have been extended benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which has come on record in the form of testimonies of material witnesses, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and on parity but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, prejudice the trial in any manner, the petition is a in the FIR. The complainant and two material eye-witnesses have since been examined and none of them have supported the prosecution accused Ramesh Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar and Satbir have been ner deserves to be extended the same benefit. His antecedents are clean. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he extended benefit of bail and the petition deserves to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2025. Only 03 out of 35 tion witnesses have been examined and none of them has implicated the petitioner in the commission of the subject offences. Similarly situated co- accused have been extended benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the ome on record in the form of testimonies of material witnesses, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and on parity but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, lest the same prejudice the trial in any manner, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is witnesses have since been examined and none of them have supported the prosecution e been ner deserves to be extended the same benefit. His antecedents are clean. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. ymore. It is, Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he extended benefit of bail and the petition deserves to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2025. Only 03 out of 35 tion witnesses have been examined and none of them has implicated the - accused have been extended benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the ome on record in the form of testimonies of material witnesses, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and on parity but lest the same petitioner is AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72763- ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 02.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.