Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4255 (PNJ)

DEEPAK v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/49788/2025 · 2026-02-05

Mandeep Pannu

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-49788- 208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Deepak State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present is the first petition under Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 109 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 complainant st 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 motor 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 a -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 Mr. Sushil Sheoran, 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, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 251 dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 109 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 st 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 motor 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 a -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49788-2025 (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, seeking 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 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 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 a the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in , 190, 191(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at 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 ated 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 cycles 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49788- Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu 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 with 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 p 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 Sanh 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 threatening the complainant with the intention to kill him. 3. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the onl @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala. As per the prosecution version itself, only one gunshot was fired in the entire incident and the said gunshot has been specifically attributed to accused Sumit @ Kala, which did not hit the compla Ashish @ Kaku was found innocent on the basis of CCTV footage and it also emerged that only two motorcycles were used in the occurrence. The petitioner -2025 (O&M) Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu . 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 n 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 Sanh 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 reatening the complainant with the intention to kill him. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the only named accused therein are Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala. As per the prosecution version itself, only one gunshot was fired in the entire incident and the said gunshot has been specifically attributed to accused Sumit @ Kala, which did not hit the compla Ashish @ Kaku was found innocent on the basis of CCTV footage and it also emerged that only two motorcycles were used in the occurrence. The petitioner -2- Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu . 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 n 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 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 revious 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 and reatening the complainant with the intention to kill him. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the y named accused therein are Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala. As per the prosecution version itself, only one gunshot was fired in the entire incident and the said gunshot has been specifically attributed to accused Sumit @ Kala, which did not hit the complainant. During investigation, Ashish @ Kaku was found innocent on the basis of CCTV footage and it also emerged that only two motorcycles were used in the occurrence. The petitioner Ashish @ Kaku son of Devendra and Sumit @ Kala son of Om Parkash @ Bhallu . 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 n 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 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 revious 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 ita, 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 The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the y named accused therein are Ashish @ Kaku and Sumit @ Kala. As per the prosecution version itself, only one gunshot was fired in the entire incident and the said gunshot has been specifically attributed inant. During investigation, Ashish @ Kaku was found innocent on the basis of CCTV footage and it also emerged that only two motorcycles were used in the occurrence. The petitioner TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49788- was subsequently nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after a delay of more than one month, which renders the allegation against the petitioner doubtful. 4. It is further contended that no recovery of any weapon has been effected from the petitioner and there is no m the main accused or the alleged firing. The petitioner is stated to have a similar role as that of co-accused Sidharth @ Siddhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who were not named in the FIR and have already been granted the concess Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.10.2024, the challan has already been presented on 19.12.2024, charges have been framed on 15.04.2025 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping behind bars. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and clearly disclose his active participation in the commission of the offence. The State contends that during investigation, CCTV footage collected from various locations, including the petrol pump and nearby areas, clearly establishes the movement of the accused persons and the use of motorcycles in the commission of the crime. It is argued that the petitioner was not a m by conducting reconnaissance (recce) to locate the complainant and by facilitating the commission of the offence. -2025 (O&M) was subsequently nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after a delay of more than one month, which renders the allegation against the petitioner doubtful. It is further contended that no recovery of any weapon has been effected from the petitioner and there is no material on record connecting him with the main accused or the alleged firing. The petitioner is stated to have a similar role accused Sidharth @ Siddhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who were not named in the FIR and have already been granted the concess Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.10.2024, the challan has already been presented on 19.12.2024, charges have been framed on 15.04.2025 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping behind bars. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and clearly disclose his active participation in the commission of the offence. The State contends that during tion, CCTV footage collected from various locations, including the petrol pump and nearby areas, clearly establishes the movement of the accused persons and the use of motorcycles in the commission of the crime. It is argued that the petitioner was not a mere bystander but had actively participated in the conspiracy by conducting reconnaissance (recce) to locate the complainant and by facilitating the commission of the offence. -3- was subsequently nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after a delay of more than one month, which renders the allegation against the petitioner doubtful. It is further contended that no recovery of any weapon has been aterial on record connecting him with the main accused or the alleged firing. The petitioner is stated to have a similar role accused Sidharth @ Siddhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who were not named in the FIR and have already been granted the concession of bail by this Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.10.2024, the challan has already been presented on 19.12.2024, charges have been framed on 15.04.2025 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and clearly disclose his active participation in the commission of the offence. The State contends that during tion, CCTV footage collected from various locations, including the petrol pump and nearby areas, clearly establishes the movement of the accused persons and the use of motorcycles in the commission of the crime. It is argued that the ere bystander but had actively participated in the conspiracy by conducting reconnaissance (recce) to locate the complainant and by facilitating was subsequently nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 12.09.2024, i.e. after a delay of more than one month, It is further contended that no recovery of any weapon has been aterial on record connecting him with the main accused or the alleged firing. The petitioner is stated to have a similar role accused Sidharth @ Siddhu and Jatin @ Jeetu, who were not named ion of bail by this Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.10.2024, the challan has already been presented on 19.12.2024, charges have been framed the petitioner behind bars. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and clearly disclose his active participation in the commission of the offence. The State contends that during tion, CCTV footage collected from various locations, including the petrol pump and nearby areas, clearly establishes the movement of the accused persons and the use of motorcycles in the commission of the crime. It is argued that the ere bystander but had actively participated in the conspiracy by conducting reconnaissance (recce) to locate the complainant and by facilitating TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49788- 6. Learned State counsel further submits that the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded during investigation specifically names the petitioner and attributes a clear role to him along with co Akash @ Bholi and Arman. It is contended that the petitioner, on the asking of co accused Sumit @ Kala, pro two litres of petrol in a bottle, which was handed over to co Akash for executing the plan. The CCTV footage also shows the petitioner riding the said motorcycle, which was subsequently us petitioner has also been corroborated by the statement of Dalbir, uncle of the complainant, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. It is further argued that although the bullet fired by co @ Kala did not hit t conduct of the accused persons, who came armed, fired at the complainant and chased him. The pistol used in the crime has been recovered by the Delhi Police in another case, FIR No. 296 dated 2 the said case under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, which is presently under trial. Moreover, motorcycle No. HR26EV used in the crime has been recovered from the petit with the offence. 8. The State further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2024 and remains in judicial custody. The investigation is complete, challan has been presented, charges have been framed and the trial with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. In view of the serious nature of allegations, the active role attributed to the petitioner, his involvement in another criminal case of similar nature and the likelihood of his -2025 (O&M) Learned State counsel further submits that the supplementary e complainant recorded during investigation specifically names the petitioner and attributes a clear role to him along with co Akash @ Bholi and Arman. It is contended that the petitioner, on the asking of co accused Sumit @ Kala, provided motorcycle No. HR19H two litres of petrol in a bottle, which was handed over to co Akash for executing the plan. The CCTV footage also shows the petitioner riding the said motorcycle, which was subsequently us petitioner has also been corroborated by the statement of Dalbir, uncle of the complainant, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that although the bullet fired by co @ Kala did not hit the complainant, the intention to kill is writ large from the conduct of the accused persons, who came armed, fired at the complainant and chased him. The pistol used in the crime has been recovered by the Delhi Police in another case, FIR No. 296 dated 29.09.2024, and the petitioner is also involved in the said case under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, which is presently under trial. Moreover, motorcycle No. HR26EV used in the crime has been recovered from the petit with the offence. The State further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2024 and remains in judicial custody. The investigation is complete, challan has been presented, charges have been framed and the trial with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. In view of the serious nature of allegations, the active role attributed to the petitioner, his involvement in another criminal case of similar nature and the likelihood of his -4- Learned State counsel further submits that the supplementary e complainant recorded during investigation specifically names the petitioner and attributes a clear role to him along with co-accused Sumit @ Kala, Akash @ Bholi and Arman. It is contended that the petitioner, on the asking of co vided motorcycle No. HR19H-9630 and also arranged two litres of petrol in a bottle, which was handed over to co-accused Arman and Akash for executing the plan. The CCTV footage also shows the petitioner riding the said motorcycle, which was subsequently used in the crime. The role of the petitioner has also been corroborated by the statement of Dalbir, uncle of the complainant, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that although the bullet fired by co-accused Sumit he complainant, the intention to kill is writ large from the conduct of the accused persons, who came armed, fired at the complainant and chased him. The pistol used in the crime has been recovered by the Delhi Police in 09.2024, and the petitioner is also involved in the said case under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, which is presently under trial. Moreover, motorcycle No. HR26EV-1757 used in the crime has been recovered from the petitioner, further connecting him The State further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2024 and remains in judicial custody. The investigation is complete, challan has been presented, charges have been framed and the trial is at an initial stage, with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. In view of the serious nature of allegations, the active role attributed to the petitioner, his involvement in another criminal case of similar nature and the likelihood of his absconding or Learned State counsel further submits that the supplementary e complainant recorded during investigation specifically names the accused Sumit @ Kala, Akash @ Bholi and Arman. It is contended that the petitioner, on the asking of co- 9630 and also arranged accused Arman and Akash for executing the plan. The CCTV footage also shows the petitioner riding ed in the crime. The role of the petitioner has also been corroborated by the statement of Dalbir, uncle of the accused Sumit he complainant, the intention to kill is writ large from the conduct of the accused persons, who came armed, fired at the complainant and chased him. The pistol used in the crime has been recovered by the Delhi Police in 09.2024, and the petitioner is also involved in the said case under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the 1757 ioner, further connecting him The State further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2024 and remains in judicial custody. The investigation is complete, challan is at an initial stage, with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. In view of the serious nature of allegations, the active role attributed to the petitioner, his involvement in absconding or TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49788- influencing the prosecution witnesses if released on bail, the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail and prays for dismissal of the present petition. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that the present case is a no-injury case, as the alleged gunshot fired by the co the complainant and no medical injury has been caused in the o attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing, rather the allegation against him is confined to facilitation and the alleged recovery of a motorcycle stated to have been used in the commission of the crime. Admittedly, no firear been recovered from the petitioner and the firing, as per the prosecution case itself, is attributed to the co 10. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated subsequently during investigation, primarily on the basis of disclosure statements and other material collected thereafter. The investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented and charges have been framed. The tr petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period of one year, three months and ten days, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars any further. 11. This Court further finds force in the submission that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the principle of parity, as co Sidhu, having a similar role, has already been granted the concession of bail. Keeping in view the overal allegations, the fact that no injury has been caused to the complainant, the limited -2025 (O&M) influencing the prosecution witnesses if released on bail, the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail and prays for dismissal of the present petition. This Court has heard the learned counsel perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that the present injury case, as the alleged gunshot fired by the co the complainant and no medical injury has been caused in the o attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing, rather the allegation against him is confined to facilitation and the alleged recovery of a motorcycle stated to have been used in the commission of the crime. Admittedly, no firear been recovered from the petitioner and the firing, as per the prosecution case itself, is attributed to the co-accused, who allegedly fired in the air. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner was not named in d has been nominated subsequently during investigation, primarily on the basis of disclosure statements and other material collected thereafter. The investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented and charges have been framed. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period of one year, three months and ten days, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars any further. This Court further finds force in the submission that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the principle of parity, as co Sidhu, having a similar role, has already been granted the concession of bail. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the fact that no injury has been caused to the complainant, the limited -5- influencing the prosecution witnesses if released on bail, the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail and prays for This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that the present injury case, as the alleged gunshot fired by the co-accused did not hit the complainant and no medical injury has been caused in the occurrence. The role attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing, rather the allegation against him is confined to facilitation and the alleged recovery of a motorcycle stated to have been used in the commission of the crime. Admittedly, no firearm or weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and the firing, as per the prosecution case itself, accused, who allegedly fired in the air. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner was not named in d has been nominated subsequently during investigation, primarily on the basis of disclosure statements and other material collected thereafter. The investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented and charges ial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period of one year, three months and ten days, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him This Court further finds force in the submission that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the principle of parity, as co-accused Siddharth @ Sidhu, having a similar role, has already been granted the concession of bail. l facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the fact that no injury has been caused to the complainant, the limited influencing the prosecution witnesses if released on bail, the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail and prays for for the parties and has perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that the present accused did not hit ccurrence. The role attributed to the present petitioner is not of firing, rather the allegation against him is confined to facilitation and the alleged recovery of a motorcycle stated to have m or weapon has been recovered from the petitioner and the firing, as per the prosecution case itself, It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner was not named in d has been nominated subsequently during investigation, primarily on the basis of disclosure statements and other material collected thereafter. The investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented and charges ial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period of one year, three months and ten days, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him This Court further finds force in the submission that the case of the accused Siddharth @ Sidhu, having a similar role, has already been granted the concession of bail. l facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the fact that no injury has been caused to the complainant, the limited TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49788- role attributed to the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the prolonged custody already undergone, this Court is o deserves the concession of regular bail. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds t concerned, and subject to his undertaking to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. 13. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 05, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) role attributed to the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the prolonged custody already undergone, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to his undertaking to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- role attributed to the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the prolonged custody f the considered opinion that the petitioner Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and o the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to his undertaking to abide by all the terms and conditions All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No role attributed to the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the prolonged custody f the considered opinion that the petitioner Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and o the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to his undertaking to abide by all the terms and conditions All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document