CRM-M/50581/2026 of VEDRAJ Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 11 September 2026

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.93 dated 12.6.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-AAA), 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act was substituted and Section 29 of Arms Act and Sections 55 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Mohana, District Sonipat.

2. The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 01 illegal firm-arm.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.6.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that the mandatory provisions of the BNSS have not been complied with while effecting alleged recovery from the petitioner & hence, the prosecution version suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further urged that the challan (upon culmination of investigation) already stands filed. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 9.9.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.6.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 3.8.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 9.9.2026 filed by the learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about 2 month and 28 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 other FIR. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.2 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially there being debatable issues arising from the case, the petitioner not being apprehended at the spot, no effective recovery has been made from the petitioner, the petitioner being implicated primarily on the basis of disclosure of co-accused; this Court is inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 11.9.2026 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No