CRM-M-22856- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (242) SURAJ BHAN STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of Bharatiya seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 351(2), 117(2), 118(2) of Bharatiya Police Station Sadar CRM-M-13281-2026 2. As per the allegations on 28.05.2025, victim Raman was going for doing labour work on his motorbike and when he reached near the bus his village, the co started hurling abuses to him. Raman came back to his house and told his father Sube Singh i.e. the complainant about this fact. The complainant pacified his son who left again for his work but at the bus stand, he was again stopped by the -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ) Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Parveen Sihmar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Anshul Muwal, Advocate for the **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 351(2), 117(2), 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind. His previous petition bearing 2026 had been dismissed as withdrawn As per the allegations on 28.05.2025, victim Raman was going for doing labour work on his motorbike and when he reached near the bus his village, the co-villagers Daya Nand, Raman and Gobind intercepted him and started hurling abuses to him. Raman came back to his house and told his father Sube Singh i.e. the complainant about this fact. The complainant pacified his left again for his work but at the bus stand, he was again stopped by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22856-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Muwal, Advocate for the complainant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.168 dated 29.05.2025 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Narwana, District Jind. His previous petition bearing as withdrawn on 08.04.2026. As per the allegations on 28.05.2025, victim Raman was going for doing labour work on his motorbike and when he reached near the bus stand of Nand, Raman and Gobind intercepted him and started hurling abuses to him. Raman came back to his house and told his father Sube Singh i.e. the complainant about this fact. The complainant pacified his left again for his work but at the bus stand, he was again stopped by the (O&M) 2026 petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 168 dated 29.05.2025 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, at Narwana, District Jind. His previous petition bearing As per the allegations on 28.05.2025, victim Raman was going for stand of Nand, Raman and Gobind intercepted him and started hurling abuses to him. Raman came back to his house and told his father Sube Singh i.e. the complainant about this fact. The complainant pacified his left again for his work but at the bus stand, he was again stopped by the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-22856- above named person who were armed with weapons opened an attack upon his son and caused injuries with their respective weapon complainant alongwith his wife rushed towards the spot and then the assailants opened an assault upon his wife and himself. Both of them sustained injuries and had fallen down. They were taken to hospital for treatment. statement, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Offences under Sections 109(1) and 351(2) of BNS were added on the basis of examination of CCTV footage. The petitioner was arrested on 03.06.2025. On i involvement in the crime and caused injuries to the victims the bamboo stick used in the commission of crime. concluded. 3. It is argued by learned co falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross members of the accused party had also sustained injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant party. accused namely, Ravinder but no action has been taken by the Police. No specific injury or him in custody has furnished him a new ground for afresh. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. None of the injured has sustained any injury which can be opined to be danger will take considerable -2026 (O&M) 2 above named persons, the petitioner Suraj Bhan as well as the other accused who were armed with weapons opened an attack upon his son and caused injuries with their respective weapons while making exhortations. The complainant alongwith his wife rushed towards the spot and then the assailants opened an assault upon his wife and himself. Both of them sustained injuries and had fallen down. They were taken to hospital for treatment. statement, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Offences under Sections 109(1) and 351(2) of BNS were added on the basis of examination of CCTV footage. The petitioner was arrested on 03.06.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and caused injuries to the victims the bamboo stick used in the commission of crime. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross members of the accused party had also sustained injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant party. A complaint has been mo accused namely, Ravinder but no action has been taken by the Police. No specific injury or motive has been attributed to the petitioner. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished him a new ground for . His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. None of the injured has sustained any injury which can be opined to be danger will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been Bhan as well as the other accused who were armed with weapons opened an attack upon his son and caused s while making exhortations. The complainant alongwith his wife rushed towards the spot and then the assailants opened an assault upon his wife and himself. Both of them sustained injuries and had fallen down. They were taken to hospital for treatment. On his statement, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Offences under Sections 109(1) and 351(2) of BNS were added on the basis of examination of CCTV footage. The petitioner was arrested on nterrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and caused injuries to the victims and got recovered the bamboo stick used in the commission of crime. Investigation now stands unsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross-version as members of the accused party had also sustained injuries at the hands of the A complaint has been moved by one of the accused namely, Ravinder but no action has been taken by the Police. No motive has been attributed to the petitioner. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished him a new ground for seeking concession of bail . His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. None of the injured has sustained any injury which can be opined to be dangerous to life. The trial o prosecution witness has been Bhan as well as the other accused who were armed with weapons opened an attack upon his son and caused s while making exhortations. The complainant alongwith his wife rushed towards the spot and then the assailants opened an assault upon his wife and himself. Both of them sustained injuries On his statement, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Offences under Sections 109(1) and 351(2) of BNS were added on the basis of examination of CCTV footage. The petitioner was arrested on nterrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his and got recovered Investigation now stands unsel for the petitioner that he has been version as members of the accused party had also sustained injuries at the hands of the ved by one of the accused namely, Ravinder but no action has been taken by the Police. No motive has been attributed to the petitioner. Each day spent by concession of bail . His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. None of the injured The trial o prosecution witness has been AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-22856- examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Six co-accused Gurbaksh, Rahul, Vikash, Dayanand, Naresh and Sunder have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity the said benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious allegati petitioner who by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co accused had caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the members of the complainant party. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. one is not maintainable. incident and the petitioner was one of the active participant assembly alongwith the c and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every -2026 (O&M) 3 examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. accused Gurbaksh, Rahul, Vikash, Dayanand, Naresh and Sunder have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity the said benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious allegati petitioner who by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co accused had caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the members of the complainant party. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or ding, if extended benefit of bail. The present petition being one is not maintainable. As many as 09 persons had sustained injuries in the incident and the petitioner was one of the active participant assembly alongwith the co-accused, he does not and the petition deserves to be dismissed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. accused Gurbaksh, Rahul, Vikash, Dayanand, Naresh and Sunder have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the said benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner who by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co- accused had caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the members of the complainant party. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or The present petition being successive As many as 09 persons had sustained injuries in the incident and the petitioner was one of the active participants of the unlawful accused, he does not deserve to be released on bail This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. accused Gurbaksh, Rahul, Vikash, Dayanand, Naresh and Sunder have , he too deserves to be extended the said benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the ons levelled against the - accused had caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the members of the complainant party. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or successive As many as 09 persons had sustained injuries in the of the unlawful deserve to be released on bail This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-22856- day spent by an accused in custody provi bail application under certain circumstances. indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition th press for early completion of the trial. an unlawful assembly with the co thereof, is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievou to 09 persons. However, no specific injury has been attributed to him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is a case of version and cross incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. custody for a period of over 01 year, 01 month and 15 days. proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre incarceration should not be replica of post the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to be released on bail subject to his f to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. -2026 (O&M) 4 day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition th press for early completion of the trial. The petitioner is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievou to 09 persons. However, no specific injury has been attributed to him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is a case of version and cross eration of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. custody for a period of over 01 year, 01 month and 15 days. proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. aw is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. des a new cause of action for filing a He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must The petitioner is alleged to have formed accused and in prosecution of common object is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to 09 persons. However, no specific injury has been attributed to him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is a case of version and cross-version. Further eration of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. He is in custody for a period of over 01 year, 01 month and 15 days. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The well settled aw is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be g into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered urnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty des a new cause of action for filing a He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed at the prosecution must The petitioner is alleged to have formed accused and in prosecution of common object s injuries to 09 persons. However, no specific injury has been attributed to him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has Further He is in It is well settled The well settled trial conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for and the petitioner is ordered urnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-22856- 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 16.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for petition and the same shall have no bearing allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for petition and the same shall have no bearing pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.