High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed regular bail appeals filed by Rohit Sangwan and Sagar, citing parity with co-accused previously granted bail, without commenting on merits.
Both appellants, Rohit Sangwan and Sagar, were directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:PHHC:032817
[110+257+258]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
[1] CRA-S-220-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.03.2024
Rohit Sangwan …Appellant
versus State of Haryana ….Respondent
[2] CRA-S-574-2024 Sagar …Appellant
versus
State of Haryana and another ….Respondents
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present : Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-S-220-2024.
Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vazir Singh Mor, Advocate and Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-S-574-2024.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM-7034-2024 in CRA-S-220-2024
This application was moved to prepone the matter from
01.03.2024 to some earlier date. However, said application has become infructuous.
Disposed of, as such.
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.07 07:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:032817 -2-
CRA-S-220-2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-220-2024 (O&M) & CRA-S-574-2024
[1] In the two appeals titled above, both filed under Section 14-A of the ‘Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.192 dated 19.08.2022 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506 and Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of SC & ST Act, Section 201, 120-B, 302 IPC and Section 3(2) (u) & 3(2) (va) of SC & ST Act (added later on), registered at Police station Jhansa.
[2] Appellant-Rohit Sangwan had applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra but the same was dismissed on 11.01.2024; whereas the bail petition as moved by the appellant-Sagar was dismissed on 09.01.2024.
[3] At the outset, learned counsel appearing for both the appellants, submit that similarly placed co-accused Pardeep Kumar and Lakhwinder Singh @ Fauji have already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2024 in CRA-S-2884-2023; and thereafter another similar placed co-accused Sumit was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2024 passed in CRA-S-441-2024. Copies of both these orders have been placed on record.
[4] Learned State Counsel could not refute the aforesaid contentions. It is conceded by learned State Counsel that case of the two appellants, i.e. Rohit Sangwan and that of Sagar, is on same footing as that of co-accused Pardeep Kumar and Lakhwinder Singh @ Fauji and Sumit Kumar, who have already been granted bail, after noticing that the
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.07 07:03 I attest to the accuracy and material witnesses had not supported the prosecution. integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:032817 -3-
CRA-S-220-2024 (O&M)
[5] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly on the ground of parity but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, both these appeals are accepted. Both the appellants, i.e. Rohit Sangwan and Sagar, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on
usual terms and conditions.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
| 06.03.2024 ‘Rajneesh' |
||
|---|---|---|
| Whether speaking/ reasoned | : Yes/No |
|
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.07 07:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether similar placed co-accused having been granted bail entitles the appellants to bail on the ground of parity.
Rohit Sangwan
Sagar
State of Haryana
DEEPAK GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
