CRM-M-65900- 208-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Arman State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Ms. Manita Dalla Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present is the first petition under Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2024, on the statement of complainant Umesh @ Pistol, FIR No. 251 was registered at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. The complainan was present at his fields near the tea shop situated close to the CNG Petrol Pump on Dadri–Jhajjar Road along with his uncle Dalbir, Ashok and his brother Vinay were also present at the shop. At about 6:20 PM, three m spot, two persons each were riding two motorcycles and three persons were riding the third motorcycle. Two persons got down from the motorcycles and started abusing the complainant and threatened him. The complainant identified th Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Ms. Manita Dalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present is the first petition under Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2024, on the statement of complainant Umesh @ Pistol, FIR No. 251 was registered at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. The complainant stated that in the evening, while he was present at his fields near the tea shop situated close to the CNG Petrol Pump Jhajjar Road along with his uncle Dalbir, Ashok and his brother Vinay were also present at the shop. At about 6:20 PM, three m spot, two persons each were riding two motorcycles and three persons were riding the third motorcycle. Two persons got down from the motorcycles and started abusing the complainant and threatened him. The complainant identified th Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65900-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The present is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2024, on the statement of complainant Umesh @ Pistol, FIR No. 251 was registered at Police Station Dadri t stated that in the evening, while he was present at his fields near the tea shop situated close to the CNG Petrol Pump Jhajjar Road along with his uncle Dalbir, Ashok and his brother Vinay were also present at the shop. At about 6:20 PM, three motorcycles arrived at the spot, two persons each were riding two motorcycles and three persons were riding the third motorcycle. Two persons got down from the motorcycles and started abusing the complainant and threatened him. The complainant identified them as Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner , 190, 191(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2024, on the statement of complainant Umesh @ Pistol, FIR No. 251 was registered at Police Station Dadri t stated that in the evening, while he was present at his fields near the tea shop situated close to the CNG Petrol Pump Jhajjar Road along with his uncle Dalbir, Ashok and his brother Vinay otorcycles arrived at the spot, two persons each were riding two motorcycles and three persons were riding the third motorcycle. Two persons got down from the motorcycles and started em as Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65900- Nai. It is alleged that thereafter Sumit @ Kala fired at the complainant with a pistol with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant managed to escape the gunshot and ran towards the fields to save his life. All the accused chased the complainant with the intention to kill him, upon which the persons present at the shop raised an alarm. Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala are alleged to have fired at the complainant along not hit the complainant. After some time, when the complainant returned to the spot, he found an empty cartridge lying there. The complainant further stated that Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala had basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, the present FIR was registered against Ashish @ Kaku, Sumit @ Kala and their associates for offences under Sections 109, 190, 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, attributing the role of firing with a pistol to accused Sumit @ Kala, presence and participation in the occurrence to accused Ashish @ Kaku, and involvement of other unidentified associates in chasing an threatening the complainant with the intention to kill him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the original FIR. It is submitted that i Kaku and Sumit @ Kala were specifically named and the allegation of firing a gunshot is attributed solely to co sustain any injury and admittedly, it is a no 4. It is further argued that the name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time only in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after more than one month from the date of registration of the FIR, which clearly reflects -2025 (O&M) . It is alleged that thereafter Sumit @ Kala fired at the complainant with a pistol with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant managed to escape the d ran towards the fields to save his life. All the accused chased the complainant with the intention to kill him, upon which the persons present at the shop raised an alarm. Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala are alleged to have fired at the complainant along with three to four other associates, though the gunshot did not hit the complainant. After some time, when the complainant returned to the spot, he found an empty cartridge lying there. The complainant further stated that Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala had a previous grudge against him. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, the present FIR was registered against Ashish @ Kaku, Sumit @ Kala and their associates for offences under Sections 109, 190, 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, attributing the role of firing with a pistol to accused Sumit @ Kala, presence and participation in the occurrence to accused Ashish @ Kaku, and involvement of other unidentified associates in chasing an threatening the complainant with the intention to kill him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the original FIR. It is submitted that in the FIR, only two persons namely Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala were specifically named and the allegation of firing a gunshot is attributed solely to co-accused Sumit @ Kala. The complainant did not sustain any injury and admittedly, it is a no-injury c It is further argued that the name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time only in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after more than one month from the date of registration of the FIR, which clearly reflects an afterthought and an improved version of the prosecution -2- . It is alleged that thereafter Sumit @ Kala fired at the complainant with a pistol with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant managed to escape the d ran towards the fields to save his life. All the accused chased the complainant with the intention to kill him, upon which the persons present at the shop raised an alarm. Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala are alleged to have fired with three to four other associates, though the gunshot did not hit the complainant. After some time, when the complainant returned to the spot, he found an empty cartridge lying there. The complainant further stated that a previous grudge against him. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, the present FIR was registered against Ashish @ Kaku, Sumit @ Kala and their associates for offences under Sections 109, 190, 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, attributing the role of firing with a pistol to accused Sumit @ Kala, presence and participation in the occurrence to accused Ashish @ Kaku, and involvement of other unidentified associates in chasing an threatening the complainant with the intention to kill him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in n the FIR, only two persons namely Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala were specifically named and the allegation of firing a accused Sumit @ Kala. The complainant did not injury case. It is further argued that the name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time only in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after more than one month from the date of registration of the FIR, an afterthought and an improved version of the prosecution . It is alleged that thereafter Sumit @ Kala fired at the complainant with a pistol with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant managed to escape the d ran towards the fields to save his life. All the accused chased the complainant with the intention to kill him, upon which the persons present at the shop raised an alarm. Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala are alleged to have fired with three to four other associates, though the gunshot did not hit the complainant. After some time, when the complainant returned to the spot, he found an empty cartridge lying there. The complainant further stated that a previous grudge against him. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, the present FIR was registered against Ashish @ Kaku, Sumit @ Kala and their associates for offences Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, attributing the role of firing with a pistol to accused Sumit @ Kala, presence and participation in the occurrence to accused Ashish @ Kaku, and involvement of other unidentified associates in chasing and Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in n the FIR, only two persons namely Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala were specifically named and the allegation of firing a accused Sumit @ Kala. The complainant did not It is further argued that the name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time only in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after more than one month from the date of registration of the FIR, an afterthought and an improved version of the prosecution TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65900- case. Even in the said supplementary statement, no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen riding a motorcycle in the CCTV footage. The said motorcycle was admittedly registered in the name of co accused Sumit @ Kala and the recovery thereof has also been effected from the possession of the 6. It is contended that the petitioner has neither fired any shot nor caused any injury to the complainant. No weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and nothing incriminating remains to be recov essentially arises out of an existing rivalry between the complainant and the main accused Sumit @ Kala, and the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped in subsequently. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has 05.12.2024, the cha the trial is likely to take considerable time. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. 8. Learned c Siddharth @ Sidhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who are alleged to be having a similar role, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.07.2025, and therefore, benefit of parity. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present regular bail application be allowed. 10. Learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, has submitted that -2025 (O&M) case. Even in the said supplementary statement, no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen riding a motorcycle in the CCTV footage. The said motorcycle was admittedly registered in the name of co accused Sumit @ Kala and the recovery thereof has also been effected from the possession of the said co-accused and not from the present petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has neither fired any shot nor caused any injury to the complainant. No weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. The alleged offence essentially arises out of an existing rivalry between the complainant and the main accused Sumit @ Kala, and the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped in It is further submitted that the petitioner has the challan has already been presented, the trial is likely to take considerable time. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. Learned counsel further contends that the co Siddharth @ Sidhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who are alleged to be having a similar role, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.07.2025, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of parity. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present regular bail application be allowed. Learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is -3- case. Even in the said supplementary statement, no specific role or overt act has Learned counsel submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen riding a motorcycle in the CCTV footage. The said motorcycle was admittedly registered in the name of co accused Sumit @ Kala and the recovery thereof has also been effected from the accused and not from the present petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has neither fired any shot nor caused any injury to the complainant. No weapon has been recovered from the petitioner ered from him. The alleged offence essentially arises out of an existing rivalry between the complainant and the main accused Sumit @ Kala, and the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped in It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since llan has already been presented, charges have been framed and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. ounsel further contends that the co-accused namely Siddharth @ Sidhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who are alleged to be having a similar role, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon’ble Court the petitioner is also entitled to the On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present Learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, has the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is case. Even in the said supplementary statement, no specific role or overt act has Learned counsel submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen riding a motorcycle in the CCTV footage. The said motorcycle was admittedly registered in the name of co- accused Sumit @ Kala and the recovery thereof has also been effected from the It is contended that the petitioner has neither fired any shot nor caused any injury to the complainant. No weapon has been recovered from the petitioner ered from him. The alleged offence essentially arises out of an existing rivalry between the complainant and the main accused Sumit @ Kala, and the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped in been in custody since and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated for accused namely Siddharth @ Sidhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who are alleged to be having a similar role, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon’ble Court the petitioner is also entitled to the On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present Learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, has the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65900- contended that the petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offence by conducting reconnaissance to locate the complainant and by providing a motorcycle used in the commission of the crime. It is further argued that the involvement of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements and CCTV footage, and motorcycle and SIM card have been effected from him. 11. The State further submits that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases registered in Delhi under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, which reflects his criminal antecedents. It is contended that the trial is still at an initial stage and there is the petitioner may abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, learned application. 12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record with their able assistance. 13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present case is a no-injury case, as the firearm allegedly used by the main accused did not hit the complainant and no MLR was prepared. The role attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing upon the complainant but is limited to providing a motorcycle and allegedly participating in reconnaissance, which has primarily emerged from disclosure statements of co during investigation. 14. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his nomination surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation. The principal allegation of firing is attributed to co -2025 (O&M) contended that the petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offence by conducting reconnaissance to locate the complainant and by providing a motorcycle and petrol to the co used in the commission of the crime. It is further argued that the involvement of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements and CCTV footage, and motorcycle and SIM card have been effected from him. The State further submits that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases registered in Delhi under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya e Arms Act, which reflects his criminal antecedents. It is contended that the trial is still at an initial stage and there is the petitioner may abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present regular bail This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record with their able assistance. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present case is injury case, as the firearm allegedly used by the main accused did not hit the complainant and no MLR was prepared. The role attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing upon the complainant but is limited to providing a e and allegedly participating in reconnaissance, which has primarily emerged from disclosure statements of co-accused and other material collected during investigation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not named in the FIR ination surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation. The principal allegation of firing is attributed to co- -4- contended that the petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offence by conducting reconnaissance to locate the complainant and petrol to the co-accused, which were allegedly used in the commission of the crime. It is further argued that the involvement of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements and CCTV footage, and that recoveries including a motorcycle and SIM card have been effected from him. The State further submits that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases registered in Delhi under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya e Arms Act, which reflects his criminal antecedents. It is contended that the trial is still at an initial stage and there is likelihood that if released on bail, the petitioner may abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses. On these State counsel prays for dismissal of the present regular bail This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present case is admittedly injury case, as the firearm allegedly used by the main accused did not hit the complainant and no MLR was prepared. The role attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing upon the complainant but is limited to providing a e and allegedly participating in reconnaissance, which has primarily accused and other material collected It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not named in the FIR ination surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation. The -accused Sumit @ Kala. Moreover, contended that the petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offence by conducting reconnaissance to locate the complainant accused, which were allegedly used in the commission of the crime. It is further argued that the involvement of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of that recoveries including a The State further submits that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases registered in Delhi under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya e Arms Act, which reflects his criminal antecedents. It is contended that if released on bail, the petitioner may abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses. On these State counsel prays for dismissal of the present regular bail This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused admittedly injury case, as the firearm allegedly used by the main accused did not hit the complainant and no MLR was prepared. The role attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing upon the complainant but is limited to providing a e and allegedly participating in reconnaissance, which has primarily accused and other material collected It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not named in the FIR ination surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation. The accused Sumit @ Kala. Moreover, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65900- similarly situated co granted the concession of petitioner stands on parity with them. 15. The investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented, and charges have been framed. The trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of one year, three months and eleven days, which cannot be said to be insignificant. 16. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The apprehension expressed by the State can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 17. Accordingly, the present regular bail applic petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesse tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the trial Court as and when required. 18. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 19. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disp February 05, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) similarly situated co-accused, including Siddharth @ Sidhu, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, and the case of the present petitioner stands on parity with them. The investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented, and charges have been framed. The trial is likely to take onsiderable time for its conclusion. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of one year, three months and eleven days, which cannot be said to be insignificant. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The apprehension expressed by the State can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the present regular bail applic petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesse tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the trial Court as and when Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disp , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- accused, including Siddharth @ Sidhu, have already been regular bail by this Court, and the case of the present The investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented, and charges have been framed. The trial is likely to take onsiderable time for its conclusion. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of one year, three months and eleven days, which cannot be Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The apprehension expressed by the State can be adequately Accordingly, the present regular bail application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the trial Court as and when Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No accused, including Siddharth @ Sidhu, have already been regular bail by this Court, and the case of the present The investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented, and charges have been framed. The trial is likely to take onsiderable time for its conclusion. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of one year, three months and eleven days, which cannot be Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The apprehension expressed by the State can be adequately ation is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate s or tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the trial Court as and when Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on osed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document