CRM-M No.23422 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CRM-M No.23422 of 2026 Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Rupak ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vishal Taneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Dr. Vikas Rohal, Advocate, for the complainant. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 314 15.12.2025 HSIIDC Barhi, District Sonipat, Haryana 110, 115, 118(1), 109(1), 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) (117(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of BNS added later on) MANJU 2026.07.22 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.23422 of 2026 -2- 2. As per the allegations, on 14.12.2025, the complainant Rohit had come to attend the wedding of his friend Himanshu Khurana wherein some scuffle had taken place between him, Akash @ Nikki, Prince and Rahul @ Monty. Sometime thereafter, the above named Akash, Prince and Rahul accompanied by their three accomplices opened an assault upon the complainant and extended beatings to him with their respective weapons thereby causing injuries to him. He was taken to hospital for treatment. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The CCTV footage of the place of incident was collected. The accused Rahul and Prince were arrested. They suffered disclosure statements on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as an accused. He too was arrested on 18.12.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No specific overt act or weapon has been attributed to him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. MANJU 2026.07.22 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.23422 of 2026 -3- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Serious injuries were caused to the complainant. The petitioner was seen in the CCTV footage. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses, absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. However, he has been in custody since 18.12.2025. The investigation has been concluded. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 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 petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his MANJU 2026.07.22 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.23422 of 2026 -4- furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. 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) 22.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.22 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh