CRM-M/27010/2026 of ANKIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 20 July 2026

1. The present petition has been instituted 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 connection with FIR No. 314 dated 24.10.2025, registered under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (corresponding to Sections 149, 147, 148, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Sector 9A, District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 23.10.2025, information was received through the Gurugram Police Control Room

-:2:- regarding a firing incident in Gali No. 3, Ravi Nagar, wherein one Prashant Parashar had sustained gunshot injuries and had been shifted to Ayushman Hospital near Hero Honda Chowk, Gurugram. Acting upon the said information, the police reached the place of occurrence where the complainant, Ramakant, informed them that an unknown assailant had fired at his nephew near the entrance of Gali No. 3. Thereafter, the police proceeded to the Government Hospital, Sector-10, Gurugram, where they obtained the Medico-Legal Report of the injured. Since the injured had been referred to Ayushman Hospital for specialized treatment, an application was moved before the attending Medical Officer seeking opinion regarding his fitness to make a statement, whereupon the doctor declared him "unfit for statement."

2.1. Subsequently, the father of the injured, Dilip Parashar, submitted a written complaint alleging that upon reaching the hospital he found that his son had sustained a gunshot injury to the abdomen. It was further alleged that CCTV footage/video footage of the occurrence revealed the involvement of Shivam, Rohit Solanki, Brain, Sunny Mandal and others, who had allegedly threatened to eliminate the injured a few days prior to the incident. The complainant further asserted that the said persons were members of an organised criminal gang and had earlier been involved in the murder of his nephew Parv @ Baddi in January, 2025. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It

-:3:- is submitted that he has remained in judicial custody since 26.10.2025 and no specific overt act has been attributed to him. It is further argued that the trial is likely to consume considerable time before its conclusion and that a co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. On these premises, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused who has been granted bail, as the said accused was not present at the scene of occurrence, whereas the petitioner is specifically reflected in the CCTV footage accompanying the principal accused at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and, therefore, no indulgence is warranted.

4.1. Learned State counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to the status report, wherein it has been specifically averred that the petitioner was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched with co-accused Rohit Solanki and Shubham to eliminate the injured Prashant Parashar. It is stated that on 23.10.2025, the petitioner accompanied co-accused Shubham and Sher Singh to the place of occurrence and remained present when co-accused Sher Singh allegedly fired at the victim with the intention of causing his death. Immediately after the commission of the offence, the petitioner allegedly fled from the spot along with the other accused. It is, therefore, submitted that the

-:4:- investigation is still at a crucial stage and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully examined the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance.

6. Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is specifically reflected in the CCTV footage accompanying the principal accused at the time of the occurrence. The status report further attributes to him an active role in the alleged criminal conspiracy culminating in the commission of the offence. At this stage, the investigation has not attained finality and the material prosecution witnesses, whose testimonies are crucial for unfolding the prosecution case, are yet to be examined.

6.1. The plea of parity raised on behalf of the petitioner is also devoid of merit, inasmuch as the role attributed to the petitioner is prima facie distinguishable from that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail. The settled principle of parity cannot be invoked in the absence of similarity in role, circumstances and degree of involvement.

6.2. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the material collected during investigation, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that grant of regular bail at this juncture may adversely impact the fair conduct of the trial and carries a reasonable likelihood of the petitioner influencing or intimidating material witnesses.

-:5:- Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either party during the course of trial, this Court finds no ground to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

6.3. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous and interlocutory applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 20.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No