CRM-M-23590-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM-M-23590-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Ashok and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 168 dated 29.05.2025 registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 109(1), 351(2), 117(2) and 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind. Their previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.04.2026. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a statement recorded by the complainant-Sube Singh, alleging that on 28.05.2025, co-accused Dayanand along with Raman and Gobind had intercepted his son Raman, when he was going for his work on his motor bike MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23590-2026 (O&M) -1- and had hurled abuses to him. His son had apprised him about this fact after coming back to his house. The complainant had pacified him and when his son left again for his work place, he was again stopped by accused Dayanand and others who were armed with weapons and opened an attack upon his son with the same thereby causing injuries to him while making exhortations. The complainant and his wife were also assaulted by them when they rushed for rescue of their son. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Co-accused Dayanand was arrested on 27.09.2025. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was procured and on the basis of the same, petitioner Ashok was nominated in this case as co-accused. He was arrested on 03.06.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the subject crime and got recovered one wooden stick, which he had allegedly used in commission of crime. On 19.09.2025, petitioner No. 2 Ravinder Kumar @ Bona was joined into investigation and was formally arrested as he was found to have participated in commission of crime along with the co-accused. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross-version. The petitioners had no motive to assault the victims. Their implication in this case is based on CCTV footage, veracity of which is still to be tested during trial. They have clean antecedents. They are in custody since long. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23590-2026 (O&M) -1- Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. Most of the co-accused like Rahul, Gurbaksh, Naresh, Vikas and Sunder have already been granted concession of bail by this Court. Even main accused Dayanand, who was duly named in the FIR, has been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioners too deserve to be given the same benefit. Their continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Reply and the custody certificates have been filed. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that keeping in view of the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant and eight other members of his group. Though the allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner, however, they are in custody since long. Investigation now stands concluded. Trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude. The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody anymore. It is well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23590-2026 (O&M) -1- sentencing and that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the right of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since settled proposition of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. Keeping in view above discussed facts and circumstances, on parity and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. 09.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document