Allowed¶6

Dikashender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2025CRM-M/349/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 483 BNSS 2023; CRM-M-349-2025; FIR No. 182/2024 PS Dadri Sadar Charkhi Dadri; Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 506, 120-B IPC; Section 25 Arms Act 1959; nomination on co-accused disclosure statement; not named in FIR; no overt act attributed; custody since 23.09.2024; clean antecedents; bail is the rule jail is an exception; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Manisha Batra; Dikshender v. State of Haryana.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶6

Dikashender Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Dikshender, who faces trial in FIR No. 182 dated 27.06.2024 (offences including unlawful assembly, attempt to murder and Arms Act charge) and was implicated on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement, is entitled to regular bail.

¶1

Court's answer

The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated as accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Shivkrant.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

No specific overt act, nor any injury on the person of the victim, has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶6

Key takeaways

The petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024; trial has commenced but would take considerable time to conclude; the petitioner has clean antecedents.ratio¶6
It is well settled that bail is the rule and jail is an exception; applying this principle to the facts, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.ratio¶6
The Court recorded its considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any more.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.) allowed a regular-bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 182 dated 27.06.2024, Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri, registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 506 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner, though alleged to have joined an unlawful assembly and assaulted victim Sahil with intent to kill, was not named in the FIR and was nominated solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Shivkrant; no specific overt act or injury on the victim was attributed to him. He was in custody since 23.09.2024; investigation stood completed and the challan presented; trial had commenced but would take considerable time; he had clean antecedents. Applying the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by further custody and directed release on personal/surety bonds, expressly clarifying that its observations had no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶1

CRM-M-349-2025 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-349-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 28.08.2025 Pronounced on : 04.09.2025

¶4

Dikshender ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶8

Present:Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

¶10

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶11

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 182 dated 27.06.2024, registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 506 and 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri.

¶12

As per the allegations, on 26.06.2024, complainant Karambir along with his companions Sahil and Sachin had gone to Dadri on his pick up vehicle and had unloaded shuttering material from his vehicle and then all three of them were going towards Fatehgarh. When they reached near village Sahawas, they were intercepted by two youths, who came riding a bike. The complainant identified one of them as Sachin @ Rot. He fired a shot towards the complainant with an intent to kill him. Thereafter, co-accused Ravindra Makdana, Nitin Datoli, Ramnay, Shravan, Dharma and 2-3 unknown persons also reached there. All of them were armed with weapons. They damaged the

¶13

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.05 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-349-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶15

window panes of the vehicle of the complainant and made Sahil alight from the vehicle. One of them asked accused Sachin to kill Sahil to take revenge for Kala Khetan. All of them started extending beatings to Sahil with iron rods and dandas. The complainant and his companion Sachin concealed themselves in the nearby fields in order to save themselves. When they came out after some time, they found Sahil to be lying in an injured condition on the ground. He was taken to hospital. On the basis of the written complaint filed by the complainant, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, accused Pankaj @ Amarjit, Shivkrant and Nitin were arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the subject crime. On the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Shivkrant, the present petitioner was nominated as accused and was arrested on 23.09.2024. A mobile phone, motorcycle and a danda used at the time of occurrence were recovered from him. Co-accused Ajay was arrested subsequently. Investigation qua them stands completed and challan has been presented.

¶16

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was neither named in the FIR nor any specific overt act has been attributed to him. Investigation now stands completed. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. Hence, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.05 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-349-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶19

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully. 6. 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 assaulted victim Sahil with an intent to kill him. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Shivkrant. No specific overt act or injury on the person of the victim has been attributed to him. He is in custody since 23.09.2024. Trial has commenced but it would take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner has clean antecedents. It is well settled that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶21

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶22

04.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶23

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.05 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dikashender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dikashender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prince Ghai Vs State of Punjab

Manjeet Kharb Vs Jai Kishan

Gurinder Singh Vs Manpreet Singh

Rekha Alias Rekha Rani Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Mahajan Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Sikka Enterprieses Vs Ar Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.