Dismissed

Devender Alias Sagar v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2026CRA-S/946/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC & ST Act against refusal of bail. The appellant allegedly fired a gunshot injuring the complainant, a member of a scheduled caste; co-accused had already been granted bail. The court found his role distinct, noted his extensive criminal history and a reasonably paced trial, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Devender Alias Sagar Vs State of Haryana and Another — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

211

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. S-946 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 20.07.2026

Devinder alias Sagar

... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

¶11

Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶12

Ms. Deepali Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Surya Partap Singh, J.

¶14

This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of ‘the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’, hereinafter being referred to as “the SC & ST Act” only. Aggrieved of the order dated 10.2.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, designated under the SC & ST Act [Additional Sessions Judge], Hisar, the present appeal has been filed.

¶15

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Randhir’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the above named complainant that twenty one years ago his marriage was solemnized with with ‘Rekha’. As per complainant, on 14.01.2023 his wife eloped with his co-villager, namely ‘Pawan’. The complainant has further DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ stated that on 03.09.2023 at about 05:00 P.M. he was going to his village and 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Criminal Appeal No. S-946 of 2026

¶17

¶18

when he reached near the house of ‘Balbir’, ‘ Sagar alias Devender’ and ‘Pawan’ came on motorcycle. The complainant has further alleged that ‘Pawan’ was riding the motorcycle, whereas ‘Devender alias Sagar’ (the petitioner herein) was the pillion rider. As per complainant, the appellant fired a gunshot from his pistol which hit the complainant as his right ear and thereafter, both the above-named accused fled from the spot.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years & six months, and that the trial is not proceeding at proper pace and therefore, the right of speedy trial, available to the appellant, has been violated. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of appellant, and that detention of the appellant is not likely to serve any purpose.

¶21

In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in the present case the benefit of bail has already been granted to three co-accused, namely ‘Rekha’, ‘Sunil alias Sunny’ and ‘Abhishek’. As per learned counsel for the appellant in view of the abovementioned prevailing factors the appellant is entitled to the benefit of bail.

¶22

The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, firstly , the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of bail on the ground of parity as with regard to commission of offence the role attributed to the appellant is altogether different from the role attributed to the co-accused. With regard to above, it has been contended by the learned State counsel that there are DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Criminal Appeal No. S-946 of 2026

¶24

¶25

allegations against the appellant that he was the person who fired gunshot with intention to kill the complainant, whereas the remaining three coaccused had not played such role.

¶26

In addition to above, the learned State counsel has also contended that the appellant is a person who has numerous cases pending against him, i.e. more than 16 cases including the cases for the offences under Section(s) 307/387 IPC, 395 IPC, 379-B IPC & 398 IPC. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that the appellant is in the habit of committing offence, and as & when he is released on bail he commits offence. As per learned State counselthat is why he has been successful in committing so many offences time and again. In view of above, the learned State counsel has sought for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶27

The record has been perused carefully.

¶28

A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors

¶29

are:-

¶30

i) that the role attributed to the present appellant in comparison of his co-accused, namely ‘Rekha’, Sunil alias Sunny’ and ‘Abhishek’ is altogether different and therefore, on the ground of parity the appellant is not entitled to benefit of bail;

¶31

ii) that in the FIR itself there are very specific and categorical allegations against the appellant that he was responsible for firing gunshot and inflicting injury on the person of complainant, who belongs to schedule caste;

¶32

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Criminal Appeal No. S-946 of 2026

¶34

¶35

iii) that the appellant has a very long criminal history, such as four cases under Section 307 IPC, one under Section 387 IPC, six cases of dacoity and attempt to commit dacoity and other various cases under the Excise Act, Arms Act etc.; and

¶36

iv) that the trial is taking place at a reasonable pace.

¶37

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby observed that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed , accordingly.

¶38

It is, however, clarified that any observations recorded in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶39

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge

¶40

July 20, 2026 “DK”

¶41

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶42

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Devender Alias Sagar v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Devender Alias Sagar v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bakshi Ram Vs State of Punjab

Gurdev Singh Alias Mota Vs State of Punjab

Rahul Bansal and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Soma Rani Vs State of Punjab

Vishal Kumar @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab