Allowed¶32

Mandeep Alias Joni v. State of Haryana & Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2026CRA-S/982/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; decided 22.05.2026; CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M); regular bail granted under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act; prolonged incarceration (3.5 and 4.5 years); stage of trial (10 prosecution witnesses left); parity with co-accused already bailed; FIR No.233/2021, PS Sadar Safidon, Jind; murder (S.302 IPC added later), SC/ST Act Ss.3(2)(v), 3(2)(va); bail without merits commentary; no influencing of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Both appellants (Mandeep @ Joni and Ramdhan @ Dinesh) ordered released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, with a condition not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses. ¶32

Mandeep Alias Joni Vs State of Haryana & Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants were entitled to regular bail in view of the period of custody undergone (over 3.5 and 4.5 years respectively) and the stage of trial (10 prosecution witnesses still to be examined). +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Without commenting on the merits of the case, and taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the appellants as well as the stage of trial, the court deemed it appropriate to allow the appeals.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Noticing that the case of the appellants was akin to that of co-accused Ankit, Arun and Gulshan, to whom concession of regular bail had already been granted, the court allowed the appeals.

¶31

Key takeaways

Both appeals were allowed and the appellants were ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.ratio¶32
The appellants were made subject to the express condition that they shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeals under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act against orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind (dated 02.03.2026 and 30.04.2026) rejecting regular bail, arising out of FIR No.233 dated 30.06.2021, Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind, registered under Sections 506, 452, 323, 149, 148 IPC (Sections 302 and 201 added later) and Sections 3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act over a fatal assault on Ishwar. Appellants Mandeep @ Joni and Ramdhan @ Dinesh were in custody since 12.11.2022 and 30.09.2021, having undergone more than 3.5 and 4.5 years respectively, with 10 prosecution witnesses still to be examined. Noticing parity with co-accused Ankit, Arun and Gulshan, already enlarged on bail, and without commenting on merits, the High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.) allowed both appeals and ordered release on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds, directing the appellants not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; observations were expressly not to be treated as an expression on merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 (02 cases)

¶2

CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.05.2026

¶3

1. CRA-S-982-2026 Mandeep @ Jon i ...Appellant

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

State of Haryan a and another ...Respondents 2. CRA-S-1665-2026 Ramdhan @ Di n esh ...Appellant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryan a and another ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the a p pellant(s) in C RA-S-982-2026.

¶9

Mr. Ashok K. Sharma with Ms. Su m an Sharma, Advocates for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1665-2026.

¶10

Mr . Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Harya n a.

¶11

¶12

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶13

Bo t h these appeals, having been p r eferred against the different orders dated 02.03.2026 and 30.04.2026 passe d by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind respectively, whereby the applicatio n s for grant of regular bail of the appellants had been dismissed arising out o f the same case bearing FIR No.233 dated 3 0 .06.2021 registered under Sect i ons 506, 452, 323, 149, 148 [Sections 302 a n d 201 added later on] of the I n dian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled C astes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of A trocities) Act, 1989 (hereinaft e r referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’) at Police Statio n Sadar Safidon, District Jind, a re hence being decided by a common order. The present appeals have been f iled under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act f o r grant of regular bail.

¶14

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

¶16

203 (02 cases) CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M)

¶17

For the facility of reference, brief facts are being referred to from CRA-S-982-2026 titled as “Mandeep @ Joni Vs. State of Haryana and another” .

¶18

The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of respondent No.2-Ishwar son of Ami Lal to the effect that he was resident of Karkhana and was a labourer. He had three daughters and three sons. On 27.06.2021 at about 7.30 PM, he had returned from the nearby fields and was sitting in his courtyard. Arun, Gulshan (sons of Chand Ram), Joni son of Subhash, Ramdhan son of Oma, Ankit son of Bheera and Bishma son of Raldu came there. Gulshan son of Chand Ram who had an iron rod, inflicted iron rod blow on his head, Joni son of Subhash inflicted gandasi blow on his knees and Ramdhan, Ankit and Bhishma inflicted rod blows on his stomach. Since all the above said persons were drunkards, they took Rs.16000/- from his pocket and after leaving him in an unconscious condition, they fled away from the spot. While leaving, they threatened to kill him. After some time, his cousin Satyawan came to meet him. Ramesh son of Dharam Singh, Beenu son of Parkahasa and his cousin shifted him to Civil Hospital, Safidon from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. He thus prayed that strict legal action be taken against all the assailants but he passed away in PGIMS, Rohtak, as a result of his injuries.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contend that the appellants-Mandeep @ Joni (in CRA-S-982-2026) and Ramdhan @ Dinesh (in CRA-S-1665-2026) are in custody since 12.11.2022 and 30.09.2021 respectively and they have undergone an actual custody of more than 03 and a half years and 04 and a half years respectively. It is contended that there are still 10 prosecution witnesses to be examined. Learned counsel

¶20

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

¶22

203 (02 cases) CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and

¶23

CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M)

¶24

for the appellant in CRA-S-1665-2026 submits that the appellant- Ramdhan @ Dinesh is attributed a rod blow on the stomach which such role is akin to coaccused Ankit to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in CRA-S-1985-2025. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA-S-982-2026 however contends that the death in question took place on account of perforation in the abdominal area and that the appellant-Mandeep @ Joni is not attributed any injury in the abdominal area, moreover, he is attributed a gandasi blow on the kness which resulted in fracture. It is contended that taking into consideration the period of long incarceration, other accused persons namely, Arun being granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 04.05.2026 passed in CRA-S-1480-2026 and co-accused Gulshan was granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 20.05.2026 passed in CRA-S-1729-2026. They contend that the case of the appellants would be on identical footing.

¶25

Learned State Counsel contends that there were 14 injuries on the person of the deceased. He further contends that co-accused Mandeep @ Joni had other cases registered against him and that he was convicted for an offence under Section 379 IPC. The period of custody as well as other submissions with respect to the stage of the trial and bail having been granted to other co-accused are however not disputed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present appeals.

¶27

Without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the appellants as well as the stage of trial and noticing that the case of the appellants would be akin to the

¶28

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

¶30

203 (02 cases) CRA-S-982-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-1665-2026 (O&M)

¶31

case of co-accused Ankit, Arun and Gulshan to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted, I deem it appropriate to allow the present appeals.

¶32

The instant appeals are allowed and the appellants are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶33

It is made clear that the appellants shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶34

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

¶35

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶36

22.05.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.25 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mandeep Alias Joni v. State of Haryana & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Alias Joni v. State of Haryana & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Harpreet Singh Alias Happy Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Karanvir Singh Alias Karan Vs State of Punjab

Vipan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ramdhan @ Dinesh Vs State of Haryana and Another