Compromise Cannot Dilute the Gravity of Attempt to Murder Allegations at the Bail Stage: Punjab and Haryana High Court Declines Regular Bail Despite Victim’s Affidavit

Case Name: Aman @ Rahul v. State of Haryana and Another

Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-38759-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a compromise between the accused and the victim cannot, by itself, justify the grant of regular bail where the allegations disclose serious non-compoundable offences involving an element of public wrong. The Court observed that offences such as attempt to murder cannot be treated as purely private disputes capable of being neutralised merely because the complainant subsequently resiles from his earlier version or expresses unwillingness to pursue the prosecution.

The Court further held that where the accused is specifically named in the FIR, the allegations disclose the use of a deadly weapon, and the prosecution relies upon medical evidence and recovery of the weapon of offence, the subsequent compromise or affidavit of the complainant does not diminish the seriousness of the accusations. Such issues are matters for appreciation during trial and cannot be conclusively evaluated while deciding a petition for regular bail.

Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered for offences corresponding to Sections 307, 323, 324, 294, 506 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and the complainant were employed in the same private establishment. A dispute allegedly arose regarding payment of salary, following which the petitioner was stated to have confronted the complainant later the same day and inflicted knife injuries on his abdomen and chest. The petitioner was arrested during investigation, the alleged weapon of offence was recovered, and after completion of investigation the police presented the final report before the trial court.

Seeking bail, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution story had substantially weakened because the complainant had subsequently executed an affidavit asserting that the petitioner was not the assailant and that the injuries had been caused by an unknown person. It was further argued that the parties had amicably resolved their dispute, investigation had concluded, custodial interrogation was no longer required, and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR, the allegations involved a knife attack on vital parts of the body, medical evidence supported the prosecution case, and the alleged weapon had been recovered during investigation. It was further argued that the compromise could not erase criminal liability in respect of serious non-compoundable offences and that the possibility of influencing witnesses still existed as the trial had not commenced.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that the offences alleged were not merely private disputes but involved serious criminal allegations affecting the administration of criminal justice. The Court held that a compromise or subsequent affidavit by the complainant could not, at the stage of bail, eclipse the gravity of the allegations or render the prosecution case inconsequential.

The Court emphasised that the evidentiary value of the complainant’s subsequent affidavit, the prosecution evidence, the medical record and other surrounding circumstances would have to be examined during trial. These questions could not be conclusively determined while adjudicating a bail application. Considering the specific allegations of assault with a sharp-edged weapon, the supporting medical material, and the non-compoundable nature of the offences, the Court found no ground to extend the concession of regular bail.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail, holding that the gravity of the allegations, the use of a sharp-edged weapon, and the non-compoundable nature of the offences outweighed the effect of the subsequent compromise and victim’s affidavit at the present stage of the proceedings.