Allowed

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2026CRA-S/230/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in an FIR involving assault on three persons with caste-based abuse; Section 103(1) BNS was deleted as the deceased died of pre-existing pathology. Considering long custody, clean antecedents, slow trial progress and speedy-trial rights under Article 21, bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellant on furnishing bail/surety bonds, subject to nine conditions including non-tampering, surrendering passport and attending trial.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRA-S-230-2026 -1-

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN J AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

¶3

220 CRA-S-230-2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026

Pawan K u mar

…Appellant.

State of H aryana and another

¶8

…Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

¶10

Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advoc a te for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Vishal Singh, Assistant A dvocate General, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

¶14

Appellant, an accused in c a se FIR No. 56 dated 13.02.2 0 25, registere d against him under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 110, 109(2), 115, 117(2), 190, 192(2), 193(3), 351(2) of BNS and S ection 3(21)(v) of Scheduled C a ste and Sch e duled Tribe (Prevention of A t rocities) Act, 1989 (in short “ the SC/ST A c t”), at Police Station Tosham, h as filed the present appeal for g r ant of bail.

¶15

Relevant facts necessary f o r disposal of present appeal are taken from para 2 of the status report dated 16.2.2026 filed by wa y of affidavit o f Dalip Singh, Deputy Superin t endent of Police, Tosham, Dis t rict Bhiwani: -

¶16

“2. On 13.02.2025, a ruqqa was received in Police Stat i on, Tosham from Civil Hospita l , Tosham that Dilbag, son of S her

¶17

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRA-S-230-2026

¶19

-2-

¶20

Singh, Sandeep son of Sure n der Singh and Dharambir so n of Sher Singh have sustained i n juries in a fight. Upon which , SI Suresh 50 along with cons t able Naveen No. 300 reache d in Civil Hospital, Tosham and collected MLR’s of inured. A c o py of MLR is annexed herewi t h as Annexure R1. After tha t SI Suresh called to injured a t mobile number 9138479553 a nd injured told that they are a dmitted in Jindal Hospital Hi s ar. Upon which SI Suresh 50 along with other police offic i als reached at Jindal Hospital, H isar. There opinion of doctor w as taken regarding injured Dil b ag and Dharambir. Doctor opi n ed injured Dharambir is unfit f or statement and injured Dilba g is fit for statement. Then Dilb a g deposed his stated and as per his statement: I am Dilbag son o f Sher Singh resident of Bagan w al aged 57 years mobile No. 8685817800, stated that I am resident of above mention e d address and do the wor k of agriculture. We are 4 bro t hers, farms of all 4 brothers are situated at Hansi Road, T o sham Bypass. I and my bro t her namely Dharambir are livin g in a room at our farms. San d eep son of Surender resident of B aganwal graze his 30 goats, m y 5 goats and my brother Dha r ambir’s 5 goats in farms an d he lives with us in night. Tha t on dated 12.02.2025 time aro u nd 6.00 PM was grazing goats i n farms. Out of which 4 or 5 g o ats entered into the farm of R aja upon which Pawan (pre s ent appellant), Sunna son of R a ja, Raja son of Kishan Lal c a me and fight with Sandeep, g a ve injuries, used the caste b a sed derogatory word ‘Dhed’ a n d abused him. After that we s aw

¶21

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRA-S-230-2026

¶23

-3-

¶24

them giving beating to San d eep, I and Dharambir came at the spot there Bijender son of R amesh Kumar was holding a l a thi, he started hitting me and my brothr Dharambir and g ave injuries to us. Then Pawa n (A), Sunna, Raja and Satya w an started hitting us with Lathi and Pawan (A) picked up Axe f r om the farm and hit me (Dilba g ) with his axe. After that my s on Vikas hospitalized us in Civ i l Hospital, Tosham. There do c tor referred me and my brothe r to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani. F or treatment we did not went t o Civil Hospital, Bhiwani. Inst e ad of that we got hospitalized i n Jindal Hospital, Hsiar, here our treatment is going on. Bije n der son of Ramesh, Pawan (A ) @ Pony, Sunna son of Raja, Ra j a son of Kishan Lal, Satyawan s on of Mahender, all residents o f Baganwal hit me and my brot h ers Sandeep, Dharambir and al s o threatened us to kill us and run away. Strict legal action b e taken against them. On the b a sis of ruqqa, MLR’s and injure d statement a crime under sections 110, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 1 1 5(2), 351(2) of BNS was foun d to be committed. Accordingl y , a FIR No. 56 dated 13.02.2 0 25 under Sections 110, 190, 19 1 (2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2) of B NS was registered at Police Sta t ion, Tosham.” During the course of int e rrogation, present appellant a nd Bijender, son of Ramesh, Anil @ Sinh a , all residents of Baganwal w ere arrested on 15.2.2025. During interr o gation, they confessed to t h eir involvem e nt in the commission of offenc e and got recovered the weapon s of offence, w hich were taken into possessio n .

¶25

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRA-S-230-2026 -4-

¶27

One of the injured Sandee p Kumar presented his Sched u led Caste Certificate, which was taken int o possession vide separate me m o. Accordin g ly, Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/S T Act was added.

¶28

Medical opinion with regar d to nature of injuries suffered by Dilbag a n d Sandeep were obtained. Dil b ag had suffered 3 injuries, ou t of which o n e was declared ‘Grievous in n ature’, whereas all the 3 inju r ies suffered b y Sandeep were declared to be ‘Simple’. Statement of 3^rd inju r ed, namely, D harambir (since deceased) co u ld not be recorded as Doctor h ad declared h im medically “Unfit”. X-ray , MLR of injured Dilbag reve a led that he h a d suffered fracture, resultantl y , offence under Section 117(2 ) of BNS was added. One of the injuries, i.e. i njury No.2, suffered by Dhara m bir was decl a red ‘Dangerous to life’.

¶29

Investigating Officer did not find any substance in the allegatio n levelled by complainant party t hat Satyawan was also involve d in the incid e nt, who was accordingly, kept i n column No.2 of chalan.

¶30

On culmination of investi g ation, challan was filed, cha r ges were fra m ed under Sections 109(2), 110 , 115, 117(2), 3(5), 351(2) of B NS and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act ag a inst the accused persons inclu d ing present a p pellant.

¶31

Unfortunately, one of injure d Dharambir passed away. Sec t ion 103(1) o f BNS was added. Though the P ost Mortem Examination was got conducte d , but the Board of Doctors did not give any final opinion w ith regard to the case of death. Later based on the forensic analysis report a nd patholog y report, the final cause of d e ath of Dharambir was opine d as follows:-

¶32

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRA-S-230-2026 -5-

¶34

“cause of death in this case is hepatopulmonary pathology a nd its complications accompan i ed by septicemia over the alre a dy weakened body as described in the postmortem examination.” Resultantly, Section 103 (1) B NS was deleted. Appellant-accused moved a n application for grant of bail be f ore learned A dditional Sessions Judge, B h iwani. The same came to be dismisse d vide order dated 18.8.2025. Aggrieved of which, the pre s ent appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the ap p ellant contends that a bare per u sal of the d o cuments placed on case file, as in, the disclosure statemen t of appellant and other accused clearly revea l that the complainant party was the “Aggress o r” and had initiated the assault by inflicting injuries on the person of appell a nt, who had also filed a comp l aint with police authorities, bu t no action w a s initiated on the same.

¶35

It is further the submission o f learned counsel that falsity of the case set u p by complainant party is ap p arent from the fact that even the MLR als o does not corroborate his sta n d, as none of injuries suffered by injured were opined to have been caused w ith sharp edged weapon.

¶36

Learned counsel fairly conte n ds that even if allegations leve l led by compl a inant are taken to be true at their face value (though not admitt e d), injury att r ibuted to the present appellant has been declared to be ‘Grievous in nature’. Injury declared as ‘Dangerou s to life’ is attributed to co-acc u sed Anil @ S i nha.

¶37

The next leg of submission r aised by learned counsel is that out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses, only 5 have been examined till date, t h us, the likeli h ood of completion of trial in th e near future is quite remote. W h en

¶38

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRA-S-230-2026 -6-

¶40

appreciat e d in light of the submissio n s advanced hereinabove, lear n ed counsel p rays that appellant, who has b e en in custody since 15.2.2025 a nd who is a person of clean past antecede n ts, deserves a lenient view to be taken in h is favour, for his (A) further incarceration would not serve a ny useful pu r pose as the same would not o n ly be violative of his rights u n der Article 2 1 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would a l so be against the principle o f “Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception”. Prayer for allowing the appeal has been made.

¶41

Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State co u nsel contends that appellant a long with his other accompl i ces unleashe d an attack on the complainant party and seriously injured th e m, apart fro m using derogatory words in th e name of ‘Caste’. It is further the submissi o n of learned State counsel that i f granted the concession of bail, the likelihoo d of appellant fleeing from the p rocess of justice by not appea r ing in Court and overawing complainant and related witnesses, who have not been exa m ined till date is quite high. D i smissal of appeal has been pra y ed for.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documen t s on record.

¶43

In the case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin Vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.4144 of 2024 decided on 04.10.20 2 4, in a case under Sections 394, 395, 397, 307 read with 120- B of IPC, Ho n ’ble Supreme Court granted b a il to the accused considering l o ng incarcera t ion undergone by him of 2 year s and 9 months.

¶44

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRA-S-230-2026 -7-

¶46

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court w h ile granting b ail to accused for 04 years in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 hel d as under:-

¶47

“16. Criminals are not bor n but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, ne v er write off any criminal as bey o nd redemption. This humanist f undamental is often missed w h en dealing with delinquents, ju v enile and adult. Indeed, every s a int has a past and every si n ner a future. When a crim e is committed, a variety of fac t ors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social a nd economic, may be, the re s ult of value erosion or pare n tal neglect; may be, because o f the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contra s ted with indigence or other priv a tions. 17. If the State or any p rosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wh e rewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an a c cused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the Stat e or any other prosecuting agen c y should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the c rime committed is serious. Art i cle 21 of the Constitution appli e s irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

¶48

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR have bee n noticed hereinabove. In the s tatus report filed by the State , as referred t o in para 2 of this order, i t has been specified that injury subseque n tly declared as ‘Dangerous to l i fe’ is attributed to co-accused A nil @ Sinha. Though unfortunately one of t h e injured died later, but as per the case of p r osecution, the said injured did not die as a consequence of injury

¶49

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRA-S-230-2026 -8-

¶51

suffered b y him in the incident. Accor d ingly, Section 103(1) of BNS w as deleted.

¶52

Be that as it may, without f u rther commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, considering the fact t hat petitione r , whose past antecedents are cl e an; not being involved in any o t her criminal c ases and who has been in c u stody since 15.2.2025, deserv e s a lenient v i ew to be taken in his favou r , moreso when the likelihoo d of completi o n of trial in the near future a ppears bleak; as out of 18 c i ted prosecuti o n witnesses, only 5 have been examined till date, in this scen a rio, further i n carceration of appellant would not only be violative of his ri g hts under Ar t icle 21 of the Constitution of I n dia, including right to speedy t rial but woul d also be against the principl e of “Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception” as hel d by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶53

Resultantly, appellant is gra n ted the concession of bail sub j ect to his f u rnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned t rial Court/Du t y Magistrate concerned. The a p pellant shall abide by the follo w ing condition s :-

¶54

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶55

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶56

(iii) The appellant shall s urrender his passport before the learned trial Court and shall not leave the country wit h out prior permission of the trial C ourt.

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRA-S-230-2026 -9-

¶59

(iv) The appellant shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶60

(v) The appellant shall n ot directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶61

(vi) The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The appellant shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the appellant seeks to chan g e any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same. (viii) The appellant will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶62

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed appro p riate while releasing the appell a nt.

¶63

Accordingly, the present ap p eal is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as g r anted to the appellant by this or d er. 10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶64

24.03.202 6		(AARADHNA SAWHNEY JUDGE )
gbs
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶65

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.31 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil @ Abid Vs State of Haryana

Meharwan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagir Masih @ Kali Vs State of Punjab

Saneha and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Simranjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab