Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32949 (PNJ)

ROHIT ALIAS TIDDA v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/21833/2026 · 2026-07-22

Jasjit Singh Bedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-21833-2026 -1- 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21833-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 ROHIT ALIAS TIDDA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate and Ms. Sweedel Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the second petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.09 dated 07.01.2023 registered under Sections 109, 309(4), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the version in the FIR that the petitioner came inside, handed over a ransom note and fired, while two boys were waiting outside, has been superseded by a supplementary statement on the basis of investigation. As per the supplementary statement, Sumit @ Sukha came inside, handed over the ransom note and fired, whereas the petitioner fired towards the complainant from outside but did not hit him. In the other cases registered against the petitioner, he has either been granted bail or, upon conviction, has been KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-21833-2026 -2- sentenced to the period already undergone. In one case under Section 307 IPC arising out of FIR No.327 dated 13.07.2019, he has been acquitted. As he is in custody since 17.01.2023 but only 01 of the 36 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 3. The learned State counsel has not disputed the factual assertion regarding the role played by the petitioner, firstly in the FIR and thereafter, during the investigation after the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. He, however, states that the petitioner too fired and his antecedents do not entitle him to the concession of bail, as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2023 but only 01 of the 36 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2023 but only 01 of the 36 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Rohit @ Tidda S/o Saad Ram @ Sadh Ram KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-21833-2026 -3- is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present case. 8. If the petitioner or his family members/associates make any attempt to contact/threaten/intimidate the witnesses in the present case, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order. 9. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause. 10. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh