Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/48048/2026 of PARAM @ MONTY Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHETRS on 2 September 2026
(O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-48048-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 02.09.2026 PARAM @ MONTY …Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal,
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Decided on: 02.09.2026
PARAM @ MONTY
…Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
…Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Present:
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana.
Mr. Shubham Mehta, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 5.
***
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
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. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 107 dated 06.05.2026 under Section 109(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station IMT Rohtak District Rohtak. Offence under Section 30 Arms Act was added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petition for regular bail.
2. It is alleged that on 06.05.2026, at about 1.00 PM, complainant’s sister complained to him that petitioner was abusing her, upon which complainant with his friends and sister reached university canteen. On seeing them, petitioner lost his temper and fired at him with intention to kill. Complainant alleged that some of the shots/pellets hit left side of his abdomen.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per medico legal report reproduced in the petition, complainant only suffered “multiple small sizes reddish abrasions” and there was no opinion of the doctor regarding gun shot injuries. He further submits that the matter had since AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.02 19:29
been compromised with the complainant and relies upon compromise deed Annexure P-2. Prayer for release on regular bail is made.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report along with custody certificate. She opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that 06 empty cartridges and one bullet were recovered from the place of occurrence and the pistol used in the commission of offence was also later recovered from the petitioner. As such, petitioner was not entitled to be released on regular bail.
5. Mr. Shubham Mehta, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5, files his power of attorney and concedes the factum of compromise. Power of attorney is taken on record. Same be tagged at the appropriate place.
6. Investigation in the case is complete. Concededly, there is no opinion of doctor that injury suffered by the complainant was fire arm injury. Culmination of trial is likely to take time. Petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2026 i.e. for the last 03 months and 25 days. His further detention is not warranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, considering the period of incarceration, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
7. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.09.02 19:29