UTTAM KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA

AMIT RANA 2026.05.30 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order CRM M-29835-2026 2 independent corroboration of the said statement. He further contends that even no person has suffered any injury in the present case and the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS has been wrongly added in the present case. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 23rd March 2026 and is in custody since then. Moreover, while referring to the compromise deed (Annexure P-3), he submits that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was not initially named and was arrayed as accused during the course of investigation. Moreover, no person had suffered