Ashish Vs State of Haryana

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 414 dated 24.10.2024 under Sections 103,115,126,190,191(3) and 61 of BNS registered at Police StationSadar Gohana Sonipat.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that one Sunny @ Maya, Hitesh @ Nanha, Krishan @ KK, and Sahil @ Baaz, along with 5–7 other associates, were standing on the road in front of Bijender’s house. They allegedly stopped Nasib and had inflicted injuries to him with lathis, dandas, and iron rods. Thereafter, the assailants fled away from the spot with their weapons and the injured- Nasib died due to those injuries.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor present at the spot. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement

¶16

RENU RAWAT 2026.02.20 14.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-51573-2025 -2-

¶18

suffered by co-accused Hitesh, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was a part of the group and was sitting at Rasia Pehlwan’s place and would be called to the place of occurrence as a backup, if required. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested after two months of registration of the FIR and there is no direct evidence to connect him with the commission of the offence, as admittedly he was not present at the spot and no injury has been attributed to him. Learned counsel further submits that, at the most, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was aware of the incident and had been told to wait and be called only if required. The petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2024.

¶19

On the other hand , learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another case under Section 302 IPC, along with cases under Sections 307 and 365 IPC and the Arms Act. The petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple FIRs. She further submits that out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses, only 08 have been examined so far.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶21

record.

¶22

After hearing rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no credible evidence available to connect the petitioner with alleged offence except the disclosure statement made by the co-accused; out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses, only 08 have been examined so far, the

¶23

RENU RAWAT 2026.02.20 14.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-51573-2025 -3-

¶25

petitioner is in custody for since 13.12.2024; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice as the trial will take a considerable time to conclude. Moreover, bail is rule and jail is exception. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

¶26

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶27

Nothing said hereinabove shall be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶28

It is clairfied that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indugling in any other cirminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶29

(H.S.GREWAL) 20.02.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶30

RENU RAWAT 2026.02.20 14.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Ashish v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish 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

Zakir Hussain @ Kaif Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Dixit Alias Ajay Alias Jai Vs State of Haryana

Mohd Rasid Vs State of Haryana

Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukh Vs State of Punjab

Jeevanjit Gill Vs State of Punjab

Piyush Gupta Vs State of Haryana