CRM-M/29040/2026 of SAMANDAR SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 August 2026

1. This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-29040-2026, CRM-M-38765-2026 and CRM-M- 38476-2026 as these are arising out of same FIR. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-29040-2026. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No.101 dated 20.04.2026 under Sections 190,191(3), 115(2), 110,351(2), 61(2), 305, 238(3) of BNS, 2023/ 149,148,323,308,506,120B, 380, 201 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh District Faridabad, Haryana.

3. The prosecution case is that on 20.04.2026, the complainant Ranjit, who was running a shop under the name and style of Kanan Trading Company at Fatehpur Billoch Grain Market, was allegedly assaulted by 10–12 armed persons who arrived in two vehicles. The assailants allegedly attacked him with iron rods and dandas, while two persons were carrying revolvers and one of them allegedly fired a shot which passed near his ear. The assailants are further alleged to have snatched a bag containing ₹5,70,000/- and fled after extending threats to kill him. The prosecution further alleges that on 18.04.2026, the complainant had caught the present petitioner and co-accused Sandeep allegedly stealing four plastic bags of grain from his shop. The police was called and an altercation ensued, during which the petitioner allegedly disclosed himself to be a police official and threatened the complainant. The prosecution alleges that the subsequent occurrence dated 20.04.2026 was motivated by the said incident. As regards the role of the petitioners, petitioner Aarush is alleged to have harboured a motive against the complainant and to have been involved in hatching the conspiracy for assaulting him. However, he is not alleged to have caused any injury to the complainant and is stated to have remained sitting in the car. Petitioner Deepak is alleged to have given beatings RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh to the complainant with a danda. As regards petitioner Aarush, he is stated to have been standing near the wall, and no specific injury is attributed to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no connection with the allegations levelled in the FIR. It is further contended that there is no medical opinion regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant so as to attract the ingredients of Section 110 of the BNS. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners Deepak and Aarush further submits that their implication is based solely upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Samandar Singh and the supplementary statement of the complainant Ranjit. It is argued that no independent material has been brought on record to establish their involvement in the alleged occurrence.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG,Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Rawat, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant. They have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have actively participated in the alleged crime. Ld. State counsel has filed the custody certificates of the petitioners in Court today and are taken on record. As per the custody certificates, the petitioners have been in custody since the day they were arrested and are not involved in any other case.

7. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

8. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegations, the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, the period of custody, their clean antecedents, the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the trial will take a considerable time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served for further incarceration of the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

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

11. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioners are found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of their bail.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh