CRM-M-69346- IN THE H (242) VISHAL STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S 2023 (for short Town, Panipat, Di 2. The complaint submitt 29.07.2025, the ac office alongwith h his friends reache other youths were come back and t complainant told h -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 109, 351(3) and 3(5) hort “BNS”) and Section 25 of Arm pat, District Panipat. he aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant Pankaj the accused Rohit Panu had called him with his friends Sandeep and Sanjay. reached there, he found Rohit Panu al s were consuming liquor. On seeing and then the petitioner asked him t told him as they are consuming liquor JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-69346-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
ate for the petitioner aryana preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.221 dated 31.07.2025 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ms Act at Police Station Model registered on the basis of a written ankaj alleging that on the night of led him at his office. He reached his anjay. When the complainant with anu alongwith the petitioner and 04 eeing them, the complainant tried to him the reason for leaving. The liquor, therefore, he was leaving the M) 2026 nder ) 2025 hita, odel ritten ht of d his with d 04 to The g the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69346- place. Feeling off the complainant complainant had a fled away from th proceedings were interrogated and s crime and got rec him at the time of now stands conclu for the commission 3. It is a falsely implicated one has sustained are not attracted in No useful purpos anymore. It is, the 4. Per c certificate and st allegations against 03 other cases, 02 committing simil extended benefit deserve to be allow -2025 (O&M) 2 ing offended, the petitioner and co-acc and the petitioner fired a shot w t had a narrow escape and the bullet h rom the spot for his rescue. After reg were initiated. The petitioner was ar and suffered disclosure statement adm ot recovered the countrymade pistol me of occurrence. The co-accused we concluded and the petitioner alongwith mission of aforementioned offences. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h tained injury and, therefore, the pro cted in this case. The trial will take purpose would be served by detaini is, therefore, argued that the petition d Per contra, learned State counsel wh nd status report, has vehemently a inst the petitioner, who is a habitu ses, 02 of which are serious in natu similar offences, intimidating the nefit of bail. It is, therefore, stress e allowed. accused started hurling abuses to shot with a firearm upon him. The ullet hit the wall. The complainant ter registration of FIR, investigation was arrested on 04.08.2025. He was ent admitting his involvement in the pistol and empty cartridge used by sed were also arrested. Investigation ngwith the co-accused is facing trial ces. l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. No ovisions of Section 109 of BNS ll take considerable time to conclude. detaining the petitioner in custody tition deserves to be allowed. sel while placing on record custody ntly argued that there are serious habitual offender and is involved in n nature. There are chances of his the witnesses or absconding, if stressed that the petition does not es to The inant ation was n the d by ation trial been . No BNS lude. tody tody rious ed in f his g, if s not AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69346- 5. This C at considerable len 6. The attempt to kill the 29.07.2025. There is a case of no inj commission of su custody for a perio of 15 prosecution of the petitioner proposition of law incarceration shou the jail is to secu preventive or puni Court is of the opi at this stage. Acco be released on bai the satisfaction o Magistrate concern 7. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin -2025 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submi ble length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accus kill the complainant by firing a shot There is a delay of 02 days in reporti no injury. Though the allegations m of subject offences as against the a period of over six months. The trial ution witnesses has been examined so tioner would not serve any useful of law is that bail is the rule and j n should not be replica of post-convict o secure appearance of the accused r punitive. Taking into consideration the opinion that a case is made out for . Accordingly, the petition is allowed a on bail subject to his furnishing perso tion of the learned trial Court/Ch oncerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. ubmissions made by both the parties accused is alleged to have made an a shot with a firearm upon him on reporting the matter to the police. It ons make out a prima facie case for t the petitioner, however, he is in he trial has commenced but none out ined so far. The continued detention useful purpose. The well settled and jail is an exception. Pre-trial onviction sentencing. The object of cused during trial, and it cannot be ration the above discussed facts, this out for grant of bail to the petitioner owed and the petitioner is ordered to personal as well as surety bonds to urt/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an rties e an on e. It e for is in e out ntion ttled trial ct of t be , this ioner ed to ds to Duty t the g an AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69346- 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9 Since any, is rendered in 17.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.