CRM-M/45950/2026 of KRISH @ KRISHU Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 August 2026

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.145 dated 11.4.2025 under Sections 109(1), 111(2)(b), 126, 190, 191(3), 238(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 25-1(B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Bhiwani City, District Bhiwani.

2. The gravamen of FIR in question is that the injured, namely, Vinod, alleged that on 11.04.2025, at about 11:30 A.M., he, along with Prashant and Sohan was proceeding on foot from their respective houses towards Dinod Road. Upon reaching near the street of Subhash Halwai in Brijvasi Colony, Pardeep @ Ainda, Gaurav @ Gaura, Sahil @ Kala, Beerpal, Rahul Nai, Vicky, Rajan, Monu @ Basandi, along with 5–6 other persons, suddenly arrived at the spot, wrongfully restrained them, and started pelting stones at them. It was further alleged that Sahil @ Kala fired a gunshot at the complainant with the intention to kill him, which struck his right leg. Gaurav @ Gaura also fired a shot from his pistol at Prashant with the intention to kill him, which hit Prashant on his right hand. The accused persons allegedly fired shots and pelted stones with the intention to cause their death.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 8.11.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, no fire shot is attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that as per FIR version, fire shot is attributed to the co-accused, namely, Sahil @ Kala and Gaurav @ Gaura. Learned counsel has submitted that co-accused, namely, Gaurav @ Gaura was found innocent by the police during the course of investigation, but has been subsequently summoned by the concerned trial Court by invoking powers under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. (Section 358 of the BNS, 2023). Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 9 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 20.8.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 8.11.2025, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been presented on 8.7.2025. Total 40 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which PW–Vinod (FIR-complainant) has been examined and thereafter, an application under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. (Section 358 of the BNS, 2023) was preferred. No other/further witness has been examined subsequent thereto. It is not in dispute before this Court that the fire shot(s) in question has not been attributed to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/injured, after receiving requisite medical treatment, stands discharged long ago. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 20.8.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 9 months and 12 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 another FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

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

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 21.8.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No