Rishi vs State of Haryana

Sukhvinder Kaur, J

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.370 dated 10.12.2024, under Sections 109(1), 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonipat.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution, as per FIR, is that the complainant namely Rajesh made statement before the police that he and his three cousins live together and Amarjeet is one of his cousins. Complainant and petitioner are relatives and a civil litigation was going on between both the parties qua some land. Petitioner Rishi, his father Subhash, mother Kanta and brother Shri Om were pressurizing the complainant side to withdraw the case but they were not agreeing for the same. On 04.12.2024, at about 09:00 AM, Amarjeet was going in the street, when he was stopped by Rishi, saying that his son had been kidnapped by him and they would kill all of them. On this, Amarjeet ran towards his house and narrated the incident to complainant. They all ran towards the petitioners’ house to get released son of Amarjeet, where the petitioner and his family was waiting for them. The petitioner caught hold of Amarjeet from behind and his brother hit him on the head with iron shovel, with intention to kill him. Amarjeet was also attacked several times on the right and left side of his stomach with iron peeler. When the complainant tried to save his cousin, he was also attacked by the iron peeler, whereas parents of the petitioner hit him with sticks and rods in their hands. On raising alarm, people from neighbourhood gathered and saved them. All the assailants fled from the spot. Amarjeet, who was bleeding profusely, was taken to Civil Hospital, Sonipat after arranging a vehicle, from where he was referred to Tulip Hospital due to his serious condition. He was further referred to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. On the basis of this statement, the FIR in question was registered.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. Initially, the FIR was registered against four persons i.e. petitioner himself, his brother and his parents. However, during investigation, his parents were found innocent. On 04.12.2024, a fight took place between both the parties. The complainant and his family assaulted the petitioner and his family and a complaint was moved in this regard to the concerned SHO. In that incident, brother of the petitioner also sustained six injuries. Only a danda/stick was allegedly got recovered by the petitioner. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He has further urged that the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2024 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the bail petition while contending that the petitioner, along with co-accused, inflicted injuries on person of complainant and head injury was declared dangerous to life. So, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and only allegation against him is that he caught hold of the complainant. As per the Custody Certificate dated 01.09.2025, which has been placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 08 months and 11 days. Trial of the case is going on, which is likely to take considerable time and out of 28 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined by Trial Court. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars. No other criminal case has been found to be registered against the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.