Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21315 = 2026:PHHC:106053
Decided on: 04.08.2026
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana.
***
Regular Bail -- Involvement of petitioner in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail and the prayer for bail has to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each individual case.
***
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 61(2), 111(2)(a), 115, 117(2), 126, 190, 191(3), 232(1), 324(4) and 351(3) -- Regular bail -- Parity -- Petitioner not named in FIR and nominated as accused on disclosure statement of co-accused -- Co-accused similarly placed already granted regular bail -- Investigation completed and challan presented -- State opposing bail on ground that five other criminal cases were registered against petitioner -- Registration of other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny concession of bail -- Prayer for bail has to be considered in light of facts and circumstances of each individual case -- Petitioner granted regular bail on ground of parity.
(Para 5, 6)
Cases referred:
1. Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr., 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831.
2. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
***
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 370 dated 17.12.2025 under Sections 61(2), 351(3), 324(4), 232(1), 191(3), 190, 126, 115 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station, Civil Line, District Sonipat, Haryana. Offence under Sections 117(2) and 111(2)(a) BNS were added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petition for regular bail.
2. It is alleged that on 17.12.2025, when complainant was going to the Court to depose against the co-accused namely Ankit, he was stopped and beaten up by approximately 5/6 persons and was threatened not to depose against the said co-accused namely Ankit, who was facing trial.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR. His name figured in the disclosure statement of co-accused. No recovery was effected from him. Further, that petitioner was in custody since 24.04.2026. Co-accused namely Siddharth alias Siddhu, Sitender, Amit Khatri alias Sethi, Amit alias Mita, similarly placed, had already been allowed regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.05.2026, 06.07.2026, 20.07.2026 and 23.07.2026, respectively. Investigation of the case was complete and challan was presented. All injuries suffered by the complainant were simple in nature. Petitioner was not involved in any other offence. He further submits that Section 111(2)(a) was wrongly invoked as the offence allegedly committed did not result in death of any person. Petitioner, who had clean antecedents, deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and files custody certificate dated 03.08.2026, which is taken on record. She opposes the prayer for regular bail on the ground that there were five other cases registered against the petitioner.
6. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been nominated as accused on disclosure statement of co-accused. Co-accused Siddharth alias Siddhu, Sitender, Amit Khatri alias Sethi, Amit alias Mita, similarly placed, have since been allowed regular bail by this Court. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 24.04.2026 i.e. for the last 03 months and 11 days. Investigation stands completed and challan has been presented in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, involvement of petitioner in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail and the prayer for bail has to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each individual case. Petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail on the ground of parity. Without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Petition allowed.
********