CRM-M No.34280 of 2026 and CRM-M No.34538 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 257 1. CRM-M No.34280 of 2026 Mubin ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent 2. CRM-M No.34538 of 2026 Khalid Khan ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Date of decision: 16.07.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.34280 of 2026. Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.34538 of 2026. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate, for the complainant. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. This common order shall dispose of abovementioned two petitions as they arise out of the same FIR and seek similar relief. 2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners under MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34280 of 2026 and CRM-M No.34538 of 2026 -2- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 626 01.11.2025 Surajkund, District Faridabad, Haryana 190, 191(2), 115, 118(1), 324(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) (118(2), 324(2), 109(1), 238(c) and 61(2) of BNS added later on) 3. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Irfan, an advocate by profession, alleging therein that on 31.10.2025 at about 11 AM, his cousin brother Mosim made a call to him and informed that his driver and himself had been assaulted by the petitioners and the co-accused accompanied by 5-7 persons unknown to him by causing injuries with lathis and dandas. He informed that the petitioner Khalid had struck blow with danda on his head. The petitioner Mubin had struck blow with kulhadi on the left leg of Rizwan who had reached there in the meanwhile. Other persons who had rushed for their rescue had also been assaulted and after damaging his bike and extending threats of life to them, the assailants had fled away. He also informed that he along with other injured had been admitted in Doon Hospital, Faridabad and was provided treatment. MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34280 of 2026 and CRM-M No.34538 of 2026 -3- 4. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. After obtaining opinion as to nature of injuries sustained by the injured Rizwan, offence under Section 109(1) of BNS was invoked. The petitioner Mubin was arrested on 25.03.2026 whereas the petitioner Khalid Khan was arrested on 26.03.2026. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. The petitioner Khalid got recovered a cricket bat used at the time of occurrence. Other accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigatin now stands concluded. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. False recoveries have been planted upon the petitioner Khalid Khan. The injuries attributed to him are not on vital part of the body of the victim Rijwan. No injury allegedly sustained by victims Rijzwan and Mosim has been opined to be dangerous to life. It is a case of version and cross version and a FIR bearing No.628 dated 01.11.2025 had been registered on the basis of complaint of member of their group. The FIR lodged by the complainant side is a counterblast to the same. The CCTV footage of the incident had been collected which shows that the members of the complainant party were armed with weapons before the occurrence which shows that they were the aggressors. The seven persons named by the complainant as accused MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34280 of 2026 and CRM-M No.34538 of 2026 -4- have been found innocent during the course of investigation. Investigation now stands concluded. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. The further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Their involvement in other cases also cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to them. It is, therefore, argued that the petitions deserve to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and while relying upon the status reports filed in both the petitions, has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. The petitioner Khalid had caused injury with danda on the head of Rizwan. The injury so sustained has been opined to be grievous in nature. It is admitted that the injury sustained by the injured Mosim was found to be simple injury. It is also argued that the antecedents of the petitioners are not clean. There are chances of their committing similar offences, intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petitions do not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 8. The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof are further alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34280 of 2026 and CRM-M No.34538 of 2026 -5- well as grievous injuries on the person of the injured. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against the petitioners. However, the investigation now stands concluded. Challan has been presented. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. As such, neither any fruitful purpose is going to be served by detaining the petitioners in custody any more nor their continued detention will serve the ends of justice. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted to bail subject to their furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh