CRM-M/34895/2026 of VIVEK ALIAS HARSH BUBKA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case arising out of FIR No. 28 dated 08.02.2026, registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 109(1), 111(3), 111(4), 121(1), 132 and 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 120-B, 307, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and Sections 25(6) and 25(7) of the Arms Act, 1959, during the pendency of the trial.

2. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 07/08.02.2026, Sub-Inspector Rakesh Kumar, Incharge, Crime Branch, Yamuna Nagar, along with other police officials, was investigating a murder case when information was received from the control room regarding an incident of firing at Waryam Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. While proceeding towards the hospital, another information was received regarding firing near City Mall. Upon inspection of both places of occurrence, it was revealed that KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh the incidents were allegedly carried out by members of the Kala Rana Gang, which had earlier extended ransom threats to the owner of Waryam Hospital. Three assailants were stated to be involved in the firing, one of whom remained on a motorcycle outside the hospital. The police collected the registration number of the motorcycle and the description of the suspects, and the information was immediately circulated to all police teams and nakas. On 08.02.2026, at about 5:20 a.m., acting upon secret information that the suspects had been spotted near New Ansal Sushant City, separate police teams reached the area near Kansapur Road and laid a naka. The prosecution alleges that gangster Surya Pratap alias Noni Rana, whose brother Kala Rana was lodged in jail, had been operating an organised criminal syndicate from abroad through his associates, namely Anil alias Monu Gujjar, Ankit Gauri and Shubham Pandit, and was getting offences such as murder, attempt to murder and extortion committed through armed shooters equipped with sophisticated weapons. 2.1 It is further alleged that while the police teams were present near the kacha road adjoining New Ansal Sushant City, three young men matching the description of the suspects were seen approaching on a motorcycle. On noticing the police, they allegedly attempted to flee, but their motorcycle slipped and fell. Thereafter, two of the accused allegedly took out firearms and opened indiscriminate fire at the police party with an intention to kill them. Despite repeated warnings by the police officials to surrender, the accused allegedly continued firing. Two bullets struck the bullet-proof jacket worn by SI Rakesh Kumar and one bullet struck the bullet-proof jacket worn by SI Raj Kumar, thereby saving their lives. In order to protect themselves and other KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh police personnel, and to prevent further loss of life and property, the police party retaliated by firing in self-defence. After the exchange of fire ceased, the accused were found lying injured and were apprehended. They were identified as Sagar son of Desh Raj, Nitin son of Mahender and Gurial son of Yadvinder Singh. 2.2 During the course of investigation, the arrested accused allegedly made disclosure statements admitting their association with the organised crime syndicate headed by Surya Pratap alias Noni Rana and Anil alias Monu Gujjar. They further disclosed the involvement of the present petitioner, alleging that he was an active member of the gang who provided arms and ammunition, financial assistance and shelter to the gang's shooters. It was further alleged that co-accused Shahbir and Amrender alias Aman, who were wanted in various criminal cases in Punjab and Haryana, were apprehended from the petitioner's flat. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, including the disclosure statements and other evidence, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him in the occurrence of firing forming the subject matter of the present FIR. Learned counsel submits that the allegation of opening fire at the police party is confined to the accused apprehended at the spot and that the petitioner has been nominated only during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused while in police custody. It is argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh was allegedly associated with the gang headed by Surya Pratap alias Noni Rana and Anil alias Monu Gujjar and was stated to have provided arms and ammunition, financial assistance and boarding facilities to the shooters. However, no material has been collected during the investigation to substantiate the said allegation. It is further submitted that no recovery of any weapon, ammunition or other incriminating article has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and no evidence has been brought on record to establish that he supplied arms, financed the alleged gang or otherwise facilitated the commission of the offence. 3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the entire case against the petitioner rests solely upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence and have no substantive evidentiary value in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence or any meeting of minds so as to attract the allegations of criminal conspiracy or organised crime. Learned counsel further submits that although three other FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, the two FIRs registered in the State of Haryana arise out of the same transaction, whereas in the FIR registered in the State of Punjab, the petitioner has already been granted regular bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.02.2026. The investigation stands concluded, Therefore, his further custodial incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 25.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 05 months and 06 days.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner is an active member of an organised criminal syndicate headed by Surya Pratap alias Noni Rana and Anil alias Monu Gujjar. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the arrested co-accused disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and specifically stated that he used to provide arms and ammunition, financial assistance and boarding facilities to the shooters of the gang. It is further submitted that co-accused Shahbir and Amrender alias Aman, who were wanted in various criminal cases in the States of Punjab and Haryana, were apprehended from the petitioner's flat, thereby corroborating his association with the organised crime syndicate. Learned State counsel submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature, involving criminal conspiracy, attempt to murder, extortion and organised criminal activities committed with sophisticated weapons. It is further contended that the petitioner is involved in three other criminal cases, reflecting his criminal antecedents.

7. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated during the course of investigation. As per the prosecution case KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh itself, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had allegedly provided shelter and logistical support to the members of the alleged gang, whereas no specific overt act has been attributed to him in the actual occurrence of firing. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 20.02.2026. The investigation stands concluded. Trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

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

9. 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 KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

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 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 KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh 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 28.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh