CRM-M-68283- IN THE H (260) NARESH @ MA STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr.
 MANISHA BATR 1. The p Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Nyaya Sanhita, 20 1959 [Section 111 District Rohtak. 2. As p information to the pursuance of a co candidate of Roht IMT Rohtak at t weapons in a car -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CRM Dat MASTER Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate fo    ****  BATRA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132, 2 ita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Secti on 111(3) and 324(4) of BNS added la As per the allegations, on 17.02.2 to the effect that the petitioner and co f a conspiracy hatched by them to c f Rohtak Municipal Corporation and k at that particular point of time w a car bearing registration No.DL-3 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-68283-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.01.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA  cate for the petitioner  preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) t of FIR No.0053 dated 17.02.2025 132, 221, 3(5) and 61 of Bharatiya Section 25(6) and 27 of Arms Act, dded later on] at Police Station IMT, 7.02.2025, on receipt of a secret and co-accused were doing recce in m to commit murder of Councillor n and were roaming in the area of ime while being armed with illicit 3-CCX-2591 and that they were  nder ) 2025 atiya Act, IMT, ecret ce in cillor ea of illicit were AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68283- having criminal an party reached at th to be coming. Wh instead of halting officials. Howeve stop. Three youth the weapons, whic of the police offic Kumar, who escap the legs of those interrogation, they Naresh i.e. the pet was effected from co-accused also. alongwith the co offences. 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody sin conclude. Presen acquitted in all the trial will take con not serve any usef -2025 (O&M) 2 inal antecedents, a raiding party was d at the informed place, wherein the g. When signal was given to the driv halting, he tried to escape after hitti owever, the said vehicle hit the divide youths alighted from the same and sta s, which they were carrying in their ha e officials. Two bullets hit the jacke escaped because the jackets were bu those youths in self defence. Th n, they disclosed their names and parti he petitioner. Recovery of one countr d from the petitioner. Recovery of w also. Investigation now stands c he co-accused is facing trial for co It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h dy since 26.02.2025. The trial wi sently no criminal case is pendi all the cases which had been registere ke considerable time to conclude. H y useful purpose. The co-accused has was formed. The members of that in the aforementioned car was found he driver of the said vehicle to stop, er hitting the vehicle of the police divider of the road and was made to and started indiscriminate firing with heir hands with intent to cause death e jackets of SI Satish and ASI Sant ere bullet proof. Shots were fired at e. They were apprehended. On d particulars as Anurag, Sandeep and countrymade pistol and 03 cartridges y of weapons was effected from the nds completed and the petitioner for commission of aforementioned l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He ial will take considerable time to pending against him as he stands gistered against him in the past. The de. His further incarceration would ed has already been extended benefit that ound stop, olice de to with eath Sant ed at On and idges the ioner ned been . He e to tands The ould nefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68283- of regular bail. O urged that the peti 4. Status State. It is argued allegations agains intention to kill th the conspiracy hat effected from him committing simila therefore, argued t 5. This both the parties. 6. The p shots with pistol u on the basis of su the occurrence as injury was sustain make out a case fo in custody for o considerable time He is not required other cases as regi any fruitful purpos -2025 (O&M) 3 ail. On parity, he too deserves the s e petition deserves to be allowed. Status report and custody certificate argued by learned State counsel that against the petitioner who had fired s kill them, when they tried to stop him cy hatched alongwith the co-accused. m him. He has criminal antecedent similar offences or absconding, if ex gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival subm The petitioner alongwith the co-acc istol upon the Police officials, when t of suspicion. The petitioner was alle ce as he himself had fired shot upon ustained by any Police official. Thou se for commission of subject offenc for over a period of almost 11 m e time to conclude since no prosecutio equired for further investigation. He as registered against him. His further purpose. Taking into consideration the the same benefit. It is, therefore, ficate has been filed by respondent- l that there are serious and specific fired shots on the Police party with m. He was actively involved in used. Recovery of weapon has been cedents. There are chances of his , if extended benefit of bail. It is, eserve to be allowed. l submissions made by counsel for accused is alleged to have fired when they were trying to stop them, as allegedly an active participant to upon the Police officials, though no Though the allegations prima facie offences against him, however, he is 11 months. The trial will take secution witness has been examined. He has been acquitted in all the urther incarceration would not serve tion the above discussed fact coupled fore, - cific with ed in been f his It is, l for fired hem, to h no facie he is take ined. l the serve pled AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68283- with the well se exception and pre sentencing, this C petitioner on bail the petitioner is or personal as well Court/Chief Judici 7. It is construed as an ex shall not influence 8. Since any, is rendered in 29.01.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 ettled proposition of law that the pre-trial incarceration should not his Court is of the considered opinion n bail has been made out. According r is ordered to be released on regular well as surety bonds to the sati Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate c It is clarified that the observation an expression of opinion of this Cour luence the outcome of the trial in any m Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   at the bail is the rule and jail is an d not be replica of post-conviction opinion that a case for release of the ordingly, the petition is allowed and egular bail, subject to his furnishing e satisfaction of the learned trial trate concerned. vations made above shall not be s Court on the merits of the case and n any manner.  een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No  is an ction f the and hing trial t be and n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.30 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.