Ashish @ Dangi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate with Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the impugned order dated

11.03.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby, the regular bail petition filed by the present appellant was ordered to be dismissed.

While granting the concession of interim bail to the appellant on

11.05.2026, this Court had noticed the following contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant:- “Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from a bare perusal of FIR (Annexure P-1), it is evident that no specific injury has been attributed to the appellant. Even otherwise, the injury which attracted the offence under section 118 (2) of B.N.S CRA-S-1590-2026 -2- has been attributed to Ankit, co-accused. Even, from the perusal of the allegations, it is apparent that no offence under Section 3(2) (va) of the “Act” is made out against the present appellant. Apart from that, the investigation in the present case has already been completed and the challan has been presented before the competent Court. He further contends that even though the appellant is involved in one more case, but he has already been granted the concession of bail in the said case. The appellant may not be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and there are no chances of fleeing from the process of justice. Moreover, the appellant is in custody since 28.01.2026 and his further custody will not serve any meaningful purpose.”

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has reiterated his submissions and submits that after grant of concession of interim bail, the appellant has not misused the concession of bail in any manner. He further submits that the other co-accused, namely, Ankit @ Minda, Upender @ Navneet @ Noni, Dipender and Ajay have also been granted the concession of bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

Learned State counsel submits that in compliance of the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by this Court, the respondent/complainant in the present case has been informed by the concerned SHO, still there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, carefully.

It is an admitted fact that even though, the appellant has been named in the FIR, but no specific injury has been attributed to him. Even the injury, which attracted the offence under Section 118(2) of BNS has been CRA-S-1590-2026 -3- attributed to Ankit, co-accused. The appellant already suffered the custody for more than three months. Consequently, no purpose will be served by keeping the appellant behind bars.