CRM-M/40875/2026 of DEEPAK Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 30 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 624 dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), initially registered under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, with Sections 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and Sections 27, of the Arms Act, 1959, having been added subsequently, at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.

2. As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, Chander Shekhar, owner of Amarjit Energy Pvt. Ltd. CNG Petrol Pump situated on G.T. Road, near Crown City, Gharaunda, District Karnal. It is alleged that on 13.10.2025 at about 10:53 p.m., an unknown person approached Rohit, a salesman working at the petrol pump, ₹ and requested him to pay a sum of 200/- on his behalf through Paytm, KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh assuring that the amount would be returned. Upon the complainant making the payment through the Paytm account of one Sombir, the said person started smoking near the CNG dispensing machine. When salesman Rohit objected to the same and asked him not to smoke at such a hazardous place, the said person became enraged, started abusing him and, with an intention to kill, fired a shot at him. The bullet, however, missed its intended target and struck Khurshid, son of Yaseen, a truck driver who was present at the spot, causing him firearm injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered initially against an unknown person under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2.1 During the course of investigation, the police identified and arrested certain accused persons. The present petitioner was subsequently nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statements made by the co-accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was acting in concert with the principal assailant and shared the common intention in the commission of the offence, whereupon Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 34 IPC) and Sections 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was a participant in the occurrence and is, therefore, liable for the offences committed by the principal accused. Upon completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Since the lawyers have given a call for suspension of work today, no counsel has put in appearance on behalf of either the petitioner or the State. However, the petitioner is represented by his Brother-in-law, Anil Kumar. The KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh submissions on behalf of the petitioner have been considered on the basis of the averments made in the present petition.

4. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR, which was initially registered against an unknown person. It is submitted that the petitioner came to be nominated only during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused. It is further contended that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are directed against the unknown assailant who allegedly fired the shot, whereas there is no allegation that the petitioner demanded money from the salesman, smoked near the CNG dispensing machine, abused the salesman, fired the gunshot or caused any injury to the victim. 4.1 It is further submitted that no firearm or other incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner and there is no forensic or scientific evidence connecting him with the alleged weapon. It is also contended that the investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. 4.2 It is further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Jatal, District Panipat, was employed as a Security Guard at the Primary Health Centre, Kabri under the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or influencing the prosecution witnesses. It is also pointed out that KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court on the ground of parity. On these premises, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail pending trial.

5. Since the lawyers have given a call for suspension of work today, none has put in appearance on behalf of the State. However, the Investigating Officer, ASI Ramesh Kumar is present in Court and has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the basis of the investigation conducted in the case. It has been submitted that the allegations against the accused persons are serious in nature. The occurrence pertains to an incident in which an unknown person allegedly fired a gunshot at the complainant's salesman with an intention to kill, though the bullet struck the truck driver, Khursheed, causing firearm injuries. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused and, according to the prosecution, he had acted in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons. On the strength of the material collected during investigation, the petitioner has been sent up to face trial.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, which was initially registered against an unknown person. The specific allegation in the FIR is that an unknown assailant fired a shot at Rohit, an employee of the complainant, which instead hit Khurshid, causing firearm injuries. Significantly, the FIR does not allege that the said assailant, subsequently identified as Sombir, was accompanied by any other person at the time of the occurrence. The petitioner came to be nominated only during the course of investigation. The allegation against him is merely that he accompanied co- accused Sombir at the time of the occurrence. Prima facie, no specific overt KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh act has been attributed to the petitioner. There is no allegation that he fired the shot, exhorted the principal accused, was armed with any weapon, or caused any injury to the victim. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his implication is stated to be based upon the disclosure statements recorded during the course of investigation. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 15.11.2025 and has undergone custody of 08 months and 15 days. The investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. In view of the number of prosecution witnesses cited, the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner and the fact that he is no longer required for the purposes of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period.

7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 30.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh