CRM-M-37178-2026 1 221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37178-2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 YASHWANT ALIAS DHONI ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar Rana, Advocate and Ms. Priya Parmar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 347 dated 13.12.2025, registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 324(4), 351(3), 61, 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 324, 506, 120-B, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code), at Police Station Sadar Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1). 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that the complainant Ved Prakash Sharma was having matrimonial dispute with his wife Renu Kumari. It is alleged that on 10.12.2025, after a quarrel between the complainant and his wife, the petitioner, who is the brother of the complainant's wife, along with other accused persons, reached the house of the complainant in a vehicle while being armed with iron rods and sharp-edged weapons. It is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37178-2026 2 complainant with an intention to cause his death and inflicted injuries upon him. The injured complainant was thereafter taken to the hospital for medical treatment. On the basis of his statement, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his sister, namely Renu Kumari. It is contended that the petitioner is the brother of the complainant's wife and has been roped into the present case only due to the said relationship. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had no intention to commit any offence and had gone to the house of the complainant along with family members and respectable persons of the village only with an intention to pacify the matrimonial dispute and resolve the matter amicably. It is argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, exaggerated and are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial. 3.2 Learned counsel submits that the complainant himself became aggressive during the alleged occurrence and sustained injuries in the ensuing scuffle. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and the petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation or recovery. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was earlier granted interim bail by the learned Court to enable him to appear in his Class 12th examination and he surrendered thereafter in compliance with the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37178-2026 3 conditions imposed, which reflects that he has not misused the concession of bail. 3.4 It is also submitted that co-accused Renu Kumari has already been granted regular bail by the learned Court vide order dated 01.05.2026. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody and the trial is likely to take considerable time as several prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 14.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 04 months and 27 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons, armed with swords and iron rods, entered the house of the complainant and caused multiple injuries to him. Learned State counsel further submits that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner of causing injury on the face of the complainant with an iron rod. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and disclose his active participation in the alleged occurrence. Learned State counsel also submits that although interim bail was granted to the petitioner to enable him to appear in his examination, however, he did not appear for the said examination, which shows that he did not avail the benefit for the purpose for which it was granted. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37178-2026 4 7. Be that as it may, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court also takes into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a young person and has undergone a substantial period of custody. It is further not disputed that the investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and the petitioner is no longer required for any further custodial interrogation. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is claiming parity with the co-accused, who has already been granted the concession of regular bail. Further, no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and the role assigned to him would be a matter of adjudication during the course of trial. Since the trial is yet to progress and the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Keeping in view the young age of the petitioner, the period of custody undergone, completion of investigation, stage of trial, absence of any specific injury attributed to the petitioner and the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated during the pendency of trial. 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37178-2026 5 State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In the present case, the trial is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37178-2026 6 the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 16.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh