CRM-M/50135/2026 of SUMIT @ SUKHNA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

::1::

(238) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-50135-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 Sumit @ Sukha ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.09 dated 07.01.2023 under Sections 307, 387, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC (Sections 109, 308(4), 238, 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Vikram @ Vicky and the same reads as under:- "To the, SHO Police Station Sadar Tohana, Respected Sir, I Vikram @ Vicky son of Sh. Shyam Sunder of resident of Village Chanderkhurd. That I have posted as Manager at B-13 Food Court in Tohana. That today dated 07.01.2023 at about 06.50PM when I was sitting on the counter of the restaurant then one young boy came to me near to the counter and gave me a slip

::2:: and suddenly turned back and went outside. Thereafter I followed him at the same time the same boy suddenly fired three rounds continuously towards inside. which hit on the glass of the main gate and the glasses of the gate were broken. That I saw that outside on the road in front of the shop, two boys were sitting on a motor cycle and the same boy at the same time accompany both the boys on the motor cycle and fled away towards the Railway Station. The bullet could have hit me if I would not have turn on the side. I read the slip and found written boxer gang Tohana need 50 lakh rupees. At the time of the incident the owner of Food Court Deepak and Jagdeep were also present there. On inquiry the CCTV Footage the boy who came inside was identified as Rohit @ Tinda son of Sadhu Ram resident of Patel Nagar Tohana. Kindly register the case and take legal action against Rohit @ Tinda and against his other companions for demanding ransom of amounting Rs. 50 lakhs and threatening to kill by firing shots. The CCTV footage of the cameras installed at B-13, Food Court will be handed over to you. Dated 07.01.2023, Sd/ Vikram Vicky son of Shyam Sunder resident of Village Chanderkhurd, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.

3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded as per which Sumit @ Sukha (petitioner) had come inside, handed over the ransom note and fired whereas Rohit @ Tinda (granted concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2023 passed in CRM-M-10962-2023) had fired upon the complainant from outside.

::3::

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the version in the FIR, Rohit @ Tinda had come in, handed over a ransom note and fired upon the complainant but the said version has been changed in a supplementary statement of the complainant as per which Sumit @ Sukha (petitioner) had come inside, handed over a ransom note and fired upon the complainant. There is a dispute regarding the identity of the person, who had entered the premises and fired upon the complainant. The recovery of a 30 bore pistol from the petitioner along with 01 live cartridge has been planted upon him. As the petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2023 but only 01 of the 36 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that during the course of the investigation, it has transpired that it is the petitioner, who had come inside the premises in question, handed over a ransom note and fired upon the complainant. Therefore, he is the primary accused. Further, the earlier applications of the petitioner have been withdrawn lastly on 13.02.2025. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is the prime accused, who had entered the premises, handed over a ransom note and fired at the complainant. The recovery of the alleged weapon of offence has been

::4:: effected from the petitioner. The cases of the co-accused, who have been granted the concession of bail are on a different footing than that of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 10, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No