CRM-M/33672/2026 of AMIT @ TOTA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 14 July 2026

1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 99 dated 11.03.2025 under Sections 61,109 (1), 111(2), 111 (3), 111 (4), 111 (6) and 308 (2) BNS read with Section 3(5) of BNS 120-B, 307, 384,34 IPC (Corresponding Sections of 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 111

(6) are not available)) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Kulwant Rai (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant"), who was employed at H.S. Liquor. It is alleged that on 11.03.2025 at about 03:30 p.m., an unidentified boy suddenly opened the gate of the premises and started firing with a pistol. Upon noticing the attack, the Security Guard, namely Rai Singh, fired from his service revolver in self-defence. The assailant allegedly retaliated by firing at Rai Singh, and one of the bullets struck the right side of his temple, causing injuries. It is further alleged that some staff members present on the roof of the building pelted stones at the assailant. Meanwhile, another boy RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh arrived from behind and assisted the shooter, whereafter both of them fled from the spot on a motorcycle.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence. He further submits that his name was surfaced only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused and the same is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that other co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 17 days and is involved in four other cases.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 17 days; apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other material on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence; co-accused have been granted concession of regular bail and that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered view that the continued incarceration of RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

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

10. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 14.07.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

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

Chandigarh