Vikas vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 -1-
S. No.208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:31.10.2026
Vikas .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Sunil K.S. Panwar, Senior Advocate
Mr. Dhruv Singh and Mr. Sahib Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)
1. This is first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.545 dated 28.08.2025 registered under Sections 191(3), 115(2), 109(1), 103(1)
329 read with Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station
Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.
2. The present case was registered on the basis of information given to
the police by Jagat Singh son of Mahender Singh which is reproduced as under:-
“To the SHO, Police Station Kharkhoda, Sir, it is submitted that I, Jagat Singh
son of Mahender Singh, am resident of village Thana Kalan, District Sonipat. On
dated 24/08/2025, my mother told me that on our plot, which is adjacent to that
of Rajkumar son of Ramsaroop, Rajkumar son of Ramsaroop and Krishan son of
Bheem Singh, residents of village Thana Kalan, with the intention to encroach,
have uprooted its gate and installed their own new wide gate. When I wanted to
talk to Rajkumar and Krishan regarding this matter, they told me that the plot is
ours, if you come on this plot, then we will kill you and your family. They
manhandled me, upon which I gave information to the police on 24/08/2025, at
RENU
2026.11.02 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 -2-
112. After that, police from Police Station Kharkhoda came and called both the
parties to the police station. After that, I told this incident to the members of my
family, after which today on dated 27/08/2025, again both the parties were to go
to Police Station Kharkhoda, in connection with which my uncle Seva Singh son
of Seetaram, my family elder Jile singh son of Khayali Ram and my aunt Kamla
wife of Krishan, resident of Makdoli, also came from Rohtak along with my uncle
Seva Singh to inquire about my well-being. In the evening at about 6 o'clock,
when we were ready to go, then for showing the photos to the police, I, my uncle
Seva Singh, my uncle Munshi Ram, my aunt Kamla, my younger brother's wife
Renu, my grandfather Jile Singh and one or two other family members reached
the plot to take photographs. There, Rajkumar son of Ramsaroop, Krishna wife
of Rajkumar, Krishan son of Bheem Singh, wife of Krishan, Mohit alias Shanu
son of Krishan, Vikash son of Krishan, Chahat son of Kanwar Singh and other
persons were already present at the spot, who were holding lathis, sticks, sharp-
edged weapons, farsa, knife like weapons in their hands, who on seeing us,
gathered together and shouting loudly, started saying that today we will teach
them the lesson of coming to the plot and today we will not leave them alive, and
all of them attacked with the weapons held in their hands. Vikash, with the farsa
held in his hand, with the intention to kill, struck a blow towards the front side of
the neck of my aunt Kamla, Shanu with the sharp-edged weapon held in his hand
struck a blow on my side/abdomen. Thereafter, Rajkumar, and wives of Krishan
and Rajkumar, and Chahat son of Kanwar Singh, and Krishan, with the weapons
held in their hands, with the intention to kill, repeatedly struck blows upon me,
my aunt Kamla, my uncle Seva Singh and my younger brother Dinesh's wife
Renu, after which on hearing noise and commotion, other villagers and other
members of my family also came at the spot, and on seeing them, the accused
again threatened us to kill and left the spot. Thereafter, all my family members
brought all us injured for treatment to Government Hospital Kharkhoda, where
due to the injuries sustained in the quarrel, my aunt Kamla died, the
RENU
2026.11.02 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 -3-
confirmation of which was done by the doctor, and the doctor referred me, Renu
and Seva Singh to PGI Rohtak, where I got my statement written through my
uncle Jagmender son of Maha Singh, resident of village Thana Kalan, District
Sonipat, which I have read and which is correct. It is requested that appropriate
legal action be taken against the accused persons. Sd/- Jagat Singh”
3. After registration of FIR, matter was investigated and the petitioner
was arrested on 28.08.2025. Remaining accused were also arrested and accused
in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered one farsa alleged to have
been used in commission of crime and after completion of investigation, final
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been presented in the Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been
falsely implicated and the entire family has been roped in. Both the parties have
suffered injuries and it is a case of counter version as well. The occurrence is said
to have taken place in the street outside the house of the accused party whereas
house of complainant is situated two lanes away and infact it is the complainant
party which was the aggressor. Learned counsel next contended that as per
allegations in the FIR, petitioner – Vikas had allegedly given a farsa blow on the
front side of neck of deceased Kamla which resulted in her death. However, the
medical evidence regarding the site and nature of injury does not correspond with
the ocular version mentioned in the FIR and infact injury No.1 which proved to be
fatal was a stab wound which cannot be caused with a farsa which allegedly has
been recovered at the behest of petitioner. Learned counsel next contended that
the version in the FIR and the medical evidence were contrary and the medical
RENU
2026.11.02 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 -4-
description of the fatal injury did not correspond with the ocular version of Jagat
Singh complainant and the weapon allegedly used and when complainant Jagat
Singh was examined in the Court on 8.9.2026 as PW3, he has changed his version
and altogether different version has been put forward by him wherein he deposed
that Raj Kumar, Krishan, Vikas – petitioner and Babita had caught hold of Kamla
and Mohit gave a knife blow in the chest of deceased Kamla. Learned counsel
contended that the fatal injury was attributed to the petitioner in the FIR which
was allegedly caused with a farsa but as per PMR deceased suffered injury over
the anteromedial aspect of right arm, 7 cm below the shoulder top with the track
extending to the right subclavian artery which cannot be caused with a farsa and
now the complainant has changed his version and only the act of catching hold of
the deceased is attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that this
aspect shows false involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question.
Learned counsel contended that the petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2025. Co-
accused Raj Kumar, Krishan, Babita, Mohit and Krishna have already been
released on bail. Trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude and no useful
purpose will thus be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any more and he
contended that the petitioner may be released on regular bail.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant has opposed the bail application and has argued that the
offence in question was committed by all the accused in furtherance of the
common object of the unlawful assembly and the deceased and other family
members were assaulted by the accused while armed with sticks, sharp edged
weapon, axes and knife and after the assault, one of the victims namely Kamla
died. Learned counsel contended that in a case where the offence is committed by
RENU
2026.11.02 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 -5-
unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the
acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object of the assembly. Learned
counsel next contended that the other family members of the petitioner have been
constantly threatening the victim party and they apprehend threat to their lives and
as such, during pendency of the trial, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on
bail.
7. As per version in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have given farsa
blow on the neck of the deceased which proved to be fatal. However, as per the
post mortem report, injury No.1 recorded in the PMR which proved to be fatal is a
horizontally placed spindle shape stab wound over the anteromedial aspect of
right arm, 7 cm below the shoulder top with the track extending to the right
subclavian artery. Since the medical description of the fatal injury did not
correspond with the weapon allegedly used the site of injury attributed to the
petitioner, the complainant – Jagat Singh while appearing as PW3 has put forward
a new version and deposed that petitioner – Vikas, Raj Kumar, Krishna and Baibta
had caught hold of Kamla and thereafter, Mohit on being exhorted by Krishan co-
accused gave a knife blow in her chest which resulted in her death. As such, a
different version has been put forward now while deposing in the Court. The only
role attributed to the petitioner is that he had caught hold of the deceased along
with co-accused Raj Kumar, Krishna and Babita. It is pertinent to mention that
co-accused Krishana @ Krishna has already been granted regular bail by this
Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 while co-accused Babita, Raj Kumar, Krishan
and Mohit have been granted regular bail by the trial Court itself. Now the role
attributed to the petitioner is at par with that of Raj Kumar, Krishan and Babita
RENU
2026.11.02 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54753 of 2026 -6-
and as such, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail even on the ground of
parity as well.
8. So far as the allegations that the some family members of the accused
have been extending threats to the witnesses is concerned, the petitioner cannot be
held responsible for the same as he is in custody and no threat has been extended
by him.
9. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the present case and also on the ground of parity with that of co-accused, I am of
the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody and resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and
conditions.
(Yashvir Singh Rathor)
Judge
October 31, 2026
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RENU
2026.11.02 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document