Allowed

Harsh Alias Naniya v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/41592/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition for a petitioner accused of assault causing grievous injuries. Despite the severity of the case and investigation conclusion, the court ruled that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive and released the petitioner on personal/surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

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

Harsh Alias Naniya Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-41592-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-41592-2026 (O&M)

HARSH @ NANIYA

. .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶9

1	The date when the judgment is reser ved	09.09.2026
2	The date when thejudgment ispron ounced	10.09.2026
3	The web date when the judgment is uplo site aded on the	10.09.2026
4	Whe pron pron ther only operative part of the ju ounced or whether the full judg ounced dgment is ment is	Full
5	The judg delay, if any, of the pronouncem ment and reasons thereof. ent of full	Not applicable
Present:	M ohd. Yousuf, Advocate for thep etitioner
	M r. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryan a

¶10

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶12

T he instant petition has been file d by the petitioner under Sectio n 483 of Bhar a tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) fo r grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.106 dated 08.06.202 6 registered un d er Sections 110, 115, 126, 1 90, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) o f Bharatiya Ny a ya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ B NS”) (Section 109(2) of BN S added later o n ) at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

¶13

T he aforementioned FIR was re g istered on the basis of a writte n complaint su b mitted by the complainant-Vik a s alias Padwa, alleging therei n

¶14

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CRM-M-41592-2026 (O&M) 2

¶16

that on the e v ening of 07.06.2026, he along with his friend Rahul and tw o more persons , namely Tanuj and Sonu alias Don, was going towards thei r village in his car bearing registration numbe r HR-34-M-4717. While on th e way, a Camp e r make vehicle came from the o pposite side and directly hit th e driver's side o f his vehicle. The complainan t found that the accused Dines h was driver of the said vehicle and the accus e d Surender, Anuj and Maheshi , along with 3- 4 more persons, were occupant s of the same. All of them wer e armed with w eapons. They opened an assault upon the complainant b y striking blow s with wooden sticks, iron pip e s and axe on the person of th e complainant a nd then, while proclaiming tha t they would kill him in future , they left the s p ot. The complainant was admit t ed to hospital and was provide d treatment.

¶17

A fter registration of FIR, i n vestigation proceedings wer e initiated. Dur i ng investigation, the CCTV fo o tage of the place of occurrenc e was procured , wherein the present petitioner along with the co-accused wa s seen while op e ning attack upon the victim. T h e victim had sustained as man y as 13 injurie s . During the course of investi g ation, offences under Section s 351(3) and 238(3) of BNS were added and o f fence under Section 351(2) wa s deleted. The p etitioner and some co-accuse d were arrested on 09.06.2026 . They suffere d disclosure statements admittin g their involvement in the crim e and identifie d the spot of occurrence. Th e petitioner got recovered th e Camper vehicle used in the offence as well a s a wooden danda. Investigatio n now stands c o ncluded.

¶18

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CRM-M-41592-2026 (O&M) 3

¶20

I t is argued by learned counsel f o r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implic a ted in this case. He was not na m ed in the FIR. He is in custod y since 09.06.2 0 24. The trial will take consi d erable time to conclude as n o prosecution w itness has been examined so fa r . His continued detention woul d not serve any useful purpose. No specific ove r t act has been attributed to him . His antecede n ts are clean. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions t o be imposed u p on him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extende d benefit of bail.

¶21

P er contra , learned State coun s el has argued that taking int o consideration the gravity of the allegations a s leveled against the petitioner , coupled with the fact that the victim sustai n ed as many as seven grievou s injuries in thi s case, out of which two were d eclared to be dangerous to life , the petitioner does not deserve to be extende d benefit of bail. It is, therefore , stressed that t h e petition does not deserve to b e allowed.

¶22

T his Court has heard the rival submissions made by learne d counsel for th e parties.

¶23

T he petitioner is alleged to h a ve formed membership of a n unlawful asse m bly and in prosecution of com m on object thereof, is alleged t o have volunt a rily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to th e complainant. T he allegations make out a pri m a facie case for commission o f subject offen c es as against the petitioner. Ho w ever, investigation now stand s concluded. T rial will take considerable time to conclude. Furthe r

¶24

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶25

CRM-M-41592-2026 (O&M) 4

¶26

incarceration o f the petitioner is not going t o serve any fruitful purpose. N o specific overt act has been attributed to him. It is well-settled proposition o f law that pre- t rial incarceration should not b e a replica of post-convictio n sentence and t hat bail is the rule and jail is a n exception. The object of th e jail is to sec u re appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot b e preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts , this Court is o f the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a cas e for grant of r e lease on bail in his favour. Acc o rdingly, the petition is allowe d and the petiti o ner is ordered to be released o n bail subject to his furnishin g personal/suret y bonds to the satisfaction o f the learned trial Court/Chie f Judicial Magi s trate/ Duty Magistrate concern e d.

¶27

I t is made clear that any observ a tion made herein above is onl y for the purpo s e of deciding the present petit i on and the same shall have n o bearing on th e merits of the case.

¶28

S ince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, i f any, is render e d infructuous.

¶29

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶30

10.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶31

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Harsh Alias Naniya v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Alias Naniya v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases