Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/48238/2026 of JAHID Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026
2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2222 illegal weapon proceeding from Gurugram towards Sohna with intention to commit robbery. A blockade was organised in Sohna and surrounding areas and different teams were formed to search for the youth. During search, the team headed by
REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-48238 of 2026 (O&M)
illegal weapon proceeding from Gurugram towards Sohna with intention to commit robbery. A blockade was organised in Sohna and surrounding areas and different teams were formed to search for the youth. During search, the team headed by PSI Mohit, spotted, a youth on a black Apache motorcycle without number plate. Despite police signals, light and siren, the rider accelerated and attempted to flee. Later, at old Alwar-Sohna road blockade, he rammed the motorcycle into barricade and fell down. Thereafter, he fired at the police party while fleeing towards Tikona Park. He was pursued by PSI Mohit and repeatedly warned to surrender. He fired again at the police and the shot hit PSI Mohit’s bullet proof jacket. In defence, PSI Mohit fired two rounds, one in the air and one aimed at leg of the fleeing youth. The accused was identified as Zahid/Jahid son of Dina, r/o village Jhimrawat, P.S. Pingawa, District Nuh. He sustained gun shot injury on his left leg and was apprehended at the spot. A loaded pistol was recovered lying beside him. He was immediately sent to Government Hospital, Sohna, for treatment.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. Earlier, he was falsely implicated in another FIR and in May, he was picked up from his residence and taken to an undisclosed location. The local leader and members of the public agitated against the police team. Thereafter, the false encounter scene was created.
Petitioner suffered injuries as a result of police firing and entire version was concocted to project the incident as exchange of fire. Investigation in the case was complete. Challan had been presented and trial was in progress.
Further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.
REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-48238 of 2026 (O&M)
Petitioner being in custody for the last about 1 year, deserved to be enlarged on bail.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail submitting that there were 15 other cases registered against the petitioner, who was a habitual offender and also a previous convict. In case of release on bail, he was likely to indulge in crime, therefore, petition for bail deserves dismissal.
5.
As per custody certificate, petitioner is under trial in 14 cases.
He is also a previous convict in following cases:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) FIR No. 293/2017 dated 24.10.2017, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram,
(2) FIR No. 455/2017 dated N/A under Section 379 IPC, Police Station-5, Gurugaon, Gurugram.
(3) FIR No. 233/2017 dated 04.11.2017, under Section 379 IPC, 411 IPC, P.S. City Sohna, Gurugram
6. Considering the antecedents of petitioner, nature and substance of allegations against him, which are grave and serious and his propensity for criminal activities, it is not a fit case to enlarge him on bail despite the period of incarceration as possibility of petitioner reoffending is high.
7. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 03.09.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI