CRM-M-36874-2026 (O&M) -1- 215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36874-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 KARTIK @ KARTIK SHONAK ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinderjit S. Nahar, Asst. AG, Punjab. None for respondent No.2. **** RAMESH KUMARI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of the Cr.P.C) by the petitioner for grant of regular bail as the petitioner has been implicated in criminal case arising out of First Information Report as detailed hereinunder:- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 240 20.06.2025 85, 115, 316(2), 76 of BNS and later on Sections 61(2) and 118(2) were added later on (erstwhile 120B, 498A, 324, 326, 354, 406 of IPC) Pundri, District Kaithal, Haryana 2. As per office report, respondent No.2 has been served through sister-in-law and also informed telephonically from mobile phone but she opted not to appear. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner broke an alcohol bottle and attacked the complainant with the intention of killing her. It is further alleged that she caught hold of the bottle in RENU BALA 2026.07.24 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36874-2026 (O&M) -2- order to protect herself, as a result of which the bottle struck her left hand, causing it to bleed. Thereafter, it is alleged that her husband bit her left shoulder with his teeth and brutally bit her left ear, tearing off a piece of flesh from it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicate in the present case and has never committed any offence. He further submits that the earlier application for regular bail was dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2026 passed in CRM-M-763-2026 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court because, at that time, charges had not yet been framed and in view of the seriousness of the allegations, duly supported by medical evidence. He further submits that, as of now, charges have been framed against the petitioner and he has not been charged with the commission of the offence of attempt to murder. He further submits that the statement of the victim/complainant has since been recorded and her cross-examination has also been conducted by the learned trial Court; therefore, there is no question of influencing the private witnesses. He further submits that the present petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the present petitioner and at the most offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is made out. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State, Delhi , 2004 SCC (Cri) 1759 . In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner assaulted the complainant so brutally that he tore off a part of her ear, resulting in permanent disfigurement of her face. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.10.2025 and is RENU BALA 2026.07.24 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36874-2026 (O&M) -3- involved in one more case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed in Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State, Delhi , 2004 SCC (Cri) 1759 as follows: “teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.” 8. In view of this observation, Section 325 IPC instead of Section 326 IPC is attracted against the petitioner. As the statement of the victim has been recorded, and there is a change in circumstances since the earlier dismissal of the petitioner's application for regular bail vide order dated 20.01.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-63342-2025, and also considering the incarceration of the petitioner from 04.10.2025 till date and that the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, no fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. As such, sufficient mitigating circumstances are made out to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and RENU BALA 2026.07.24 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36874-2026 (O&M) -4- every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (v)  The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (viii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 9. It is made clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. 22.07.2026 (RAMESH KUMARI) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU BALA 2026.07.24 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document