CRA-S-2334-2026(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRA-S-2334-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 ANIL @ BHOLA ... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Deepender Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Meyank Sarpal, Advocate and Mr. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG,Haryana. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) CRM-29841-2026 This application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 229 days for filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 229 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Main case 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby his application for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 83 dated 07.05.2025 under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 3(5), 351(2), 61 BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 323,325,34,506,120-B IPC) (later on Sections 3/33/89 of Scheduled castes and RENU RAWAT 2026.08.31 17.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-2334-2026(O&M) -2- Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and 110, 238 BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 308,201 IPC were added) registered at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad (Haryana). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2025, a medical ruqa was received regarding admission of injured Dharam Pal at ESIC Hospital, NIT-3, Faridabad, in connection with a fight. After collecting his MLR dated 06.05.2025 and obtaining medical opinion, the police recorded his statement. The complainant alleged that on 06.05.2025, he received a call from a mobile number through which the appellant called him outside the premises where he was present at the Minor Canal, village Chhainsa. Thereafter, appellant, Parshant and Rinku allegedly arrived in a white car, armed with a rod, lathi and sharp-edged weapon, respectively, and assaulted him. The appellant allegedly struck his legs with a rod, Parshant gave lathi blows on his hands, while Rinku inflicted a sharp-edged blow on his head. They allegedly abused him by referring to his caste and threatened to kill him in connection with his dispute with Sumer. The assailants allegedly continued beating him even after he fell down and fled when his son Uttam and other persons reached the spot. On the basis of the statement and medical evidence, the case was registered and investigation was initiated. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant’s injuries were neither dangerous to life nor conclusively grievous, and the allegations under the SC/ST Act were vague, unsupported by independent corroboration and appeared to be an afterthought. No specific overt act was attributed to the appellant, apart from the alleged recovery of a wooden stick. RENU RAWAT 2026.08.31 17.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-2334-2026(O&M) -3- The alleged main conspirator, Sumer, had been exonerated during investigation, weakening the prosecution’s alleged motive, and there was no CDR linking the appellant to the offence. Co-accused Prashant and Rinku had already been granted regular bail by this Court in CRA-S-2478-2025 dated 10.03.2026. The appellant is in custody since 30.05.2025, and the trial was likely to take considerable time. 4. Ld State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by ld. counsel for the appellant on the ground that the allegations against the appellant are serious and grave. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the appellant is in custody for the last 01 year 02 months and 27 days. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed considering the fact that the appellant is in custody for the last 01 year 02 months and 27 days. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. Therefore, the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. RENU RAWAT 2026.08.31 17.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-2334-2026(O&M) -4- 9. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the appellant is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 27.08.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.08.31 17.07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh