CRM-M/41782/2026 of AJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

CRM-M-46862-2026 -1- 228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 CRM-M-41782-2026 AJAY KUMAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CRM-M-46862-2026 SAMEER ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.61 dated 15.03.2026 registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5) BNS and Section 25(1-B)

(a) of Arms Act (Sections 61(2) of BNS and 25(i) (a), 54, 59 of Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Guddu @ Parteek Sharma and reads as under:- “To the SHO Sahib, Police Station Sarai Khwaja Faridabad. Sir, it is submitted that I, Guddu alias Prateek Sharma son of Sh.Kamlesh Sharma am a resident of KUSUM

CRM-M-46862-2026 -2- Village Karnera, Balaji Colony, Sector 58, Faridabad. I own a hotel called Hotel Paradise in More Market, Ashoka Eklave, Sector 35, Faridabad. About a year and a half ago, Raman son of Ashok, a resident of Village Bahri, District Karnal, came to stay in my hotel on rent. I had an argument with him. Ever since then, Raman was carrying a grudge against me. A few days ago, my friends and I made a reel and posted the same on Instagram. On which Raman commented and threatened to shoot me. On March 14, 2026, at around 10:30 PM, while I was walking in front of my hotel, Raman alongwith another man came near me carrying country-made pistols in their hands. Raman fired directly at me. in their Pistol of Raman exploded as a result of which, a piece of bullet hit on my neck. The other man accompanying Raman also fired at me with an intention to kill me, and the said bullet passed near my neck. On hearing fire- shots, people gathered at the spot, as a result of which, aforesaid assailants fled away from the spot. Both of them boarded on a motorcycle of their third accomplice, waiting at some distance and fled away. Raman and his accomplices fired at me with an intention to kill me and attempted to kill me. It is therefore, requested that strictest legal action may be taken against Raman and his accomplices. Applicant Guddu.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even taking the allegations against the petitioners to be correct, they only conducted a recce of the injured, namely Guddu @ Parteek Sharma. However, the said KUSUM

CRM-M-46862-2026 -3- allegation cannot be believed because the complainant-Guddu @ Parteek sharma was shot outside his own hotel. As the petitioners, namely Ajay Kumar and Sameer, are in custody since 15.03.2026 and 23.04.2026 respectively, but none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon, and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

3. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that during the investigation, it transpired that both the petitioners were accompanying the main shooters, namely Raman and Sahil, and therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that neither of the petitioners had fired upon the injured, that they are in custody since 15.03.2026 and 23.04.2026 respectively, and that none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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

5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioners and their co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioners are stated to be in custody since 15.03.2026 and 23.04.2026 respectively, but none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required.

6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and petitioner-Ajay Kumar S/o Bhogender Mahto and KUSUM

CRM-M-46862-2026 -4- petitioner-Sameer S/o Mohd. Gulshed are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

7. The petitions stand disposed of.

8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 10.09.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM