Runki v. Haryana State of Haryana
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB & HARYANA 216 CRM-M-12889 Date of decision: 12889-2025(O&M) decision: 03.11.2025 Ankit Kumar @ @ Runki ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Haryana. Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Astt. AG, Haryana Ms.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate, for the Mr. the respondent-complainant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition has been filed The filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case case bearing FIR No.676 dated 01.12.2023 registered under Sections 148, 149, 149, 342, 365, 506 [Sections 307 & 325 added later on] of the Indian Penal Code, Code, 1860 at Police Station Adampur Adampur, District Hisar, Haryana. 2. Briefly summarized, the case of the Briefly prosecution is that the present FIR was registered red on the complaint of Akshay, Akshay, who alleged that about six month ago, he had had been in communication with Ritu, Ritu, daughter of Sunil. When this fact came to to the knowledge of family member member of Ritu, a Panchayat was convened and it was resolved that Akshay would would not pass through the streets where Ritu reside resided, failing which injuries would be caused to him. It is further alleged that on 30.11.2023, at about 5-00 a.m., , while the complainant was proceeding towards towards his aunt’s house to deliver money, money, which is situated near Ritu’s residence, residence, he stopped his motorcycle upon receiving a call on his mobile SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.03 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 216 CRM-M-12889-2025(O&M) CRM 2 phone. At that moment, moment, one individual approached approached and questioned his presence at the spot. Soon Soon after Sunil (Ritu’s father) and and one other person, namely Patwari, also arrive arrived at the spot and began assaulting assaulting him. The complainant further alleged that that he was thereafter taken to the the house of Sunil, where 7-8 other persons were were present, who inflicted more injuries injuries upon him with Dandas and Lathis. The he accused persons also allegedly allegedly threatened to kill him and confined him in in the fodder room. On receiving receiving information, complainant’s father along with with other villagers, reached at the spot, spot, rescued the complainant and got him admitted admitted to the hospital for treatment. treatment. On the basis of these allegations the present present FIR got registered. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf Learned behalf of the petitioner submits as under:- (i) That the petitioner was not named named in the FIR and no role is attributed to him. (ii) That the petitioner was nominated nominated as an accused on the disclosure statement made by by co-accused Sunil to whom injuries were caused. (iii) That no recovery has been effected (iii) effected from the petitioner. (iv) That only 02 persons Sunil (iv) and one Patwari have been named in the FIR and the the petitioner has been found investigation. innocent during the course of investigation. (v) That the petitioner has already already undergone an actual custody of more than 10 months in in the present case and that similarly placed co-accused Sonu @ Sapan has already been granted concession of regu regular bail vide order dated 14.10.2024 passed in CRM-M M-21849-2024 titled as ‘Sonu SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.03 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 216 CRM-M-12889-2025(O&M) CRM 3 @ Sapan Vs. State of Haryana’ Haryana’ after noticing his custody of 08 months and 21 days. (vi) (vi) That the petitioner has clean clean antecedents and he is not involved in any other case. vii) That despite more than 20 witnesses (vii) witnesses having been cited by the prosecution, none has been been examined so far. 4. Learned State Counsel as well as Learned counsel for the complainant however contends contends that the bail application of other other co-accused, namely, Ajay was dismissed by by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 19.09.2025 passed in CRM-M- 19042-2025 titled titled as ‘Ajay Vs. State of Haryana’. 5. I have have heard learned counsel for the the respective parties and have gone through the the documents appended alongwith alongwith the present petition and have also taken into consideration above. consideration the facts noticed above 6. The he respondent-State has not been able able to point out as to how the role of the petitioner etitioner would be distinguishable from from that of the co-accused Sonu @ Sapan, to whom whom concession of regular bail has has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2024 passed in CRM CRM-M-21849-2024. It is also not disputed that the the petitioner does not suffer from any criminal antecedents and he was nominated nominated as an accused on the disclosure disclosure statement made by the co- accused-Sunil and and no recovery of any nature whatsoever whatsoever had been effected from the petitioner petitioner. Besides, the trial has not yet commenced commenced and the period of custody undergone undergone by the petitioner is more than than that of co-accused-Sonu @ Sapan who has already been granted the concession concession of regular bail by this Court. 7. In totality totality of the circumstances and extending parity of treatment with co-accused accused-Sonu @ Sapan, I deem it appropriate appropriate to allow the present SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.03 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 216 CRM-M-12889-2025(O&M) CRM petition. 4 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is Accordingly, allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted admitted to regular bail subject to his his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned. 9. It is is made clear that the petitioner shall shall not extend any threat and shall not influence influence any prosecution witness in any any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made hereinabove The shall not be construed as an expression on the the merits of the case and the trial C Court shall decide the case on the basis of available available material. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand Pending
Decision
stand disposed of. 03.11.2025 Sumit Gusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned speaking/reasoned reportable Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.03 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document