CRM-M-66712- 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shiv Kumar alias Shiva State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Bansal Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. None for the complainant. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0009 dated 16.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. 2. Briefly stated, the present case was registered complaint made by complainant Krishan Kumar son of Balwant Singh, resident of village Daiyar and presently residing at Kothi No. 292, HUDA Sector Fatehabad. It was alleged that Ms. Malika, resident of village Daiyar, had been living with him in a live 16.01.2025 at about 12:05 PM, when Ms. Malika was present at the aforesaid house, petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva along with one unknown person having muffled face came there and knocked -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Shiv Kumar alias Shiva VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. None for the complainant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in No. 0009 dated 16.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. Briefly stated, the present case was registered complaint made by complainant Krishan Kumar son of Balwant Singh, resident of village Daiyar and presently residing at Kothi No. 292, HUDA Sector Fatehabad. It was alleged that Ms. Malika, resident of village Daiyar, had been th him in a live-in relationship for about the last six months. On 16.01.2025 at about 12:05 PM, when Ms. Malika was present at the aforesaid house, petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva along with one unknown person having muffled face came there and knocked at the door. As the door was not opened, the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-66712-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate and , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in No. 0009 dated 16.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by complainant Krishan Kumar son of Balwant Singh, resident of village Daiyar and presently residing at Kothi No. 292, HUDA Sector Fatehabad. It was alleged that Ms. Malika, resident of village Daiyar, had been in relationship for about the last six months. On 16.01.2025 at about 12:05 PM, when Ms. Malika was present at the aforesaid house, petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva along with one unknown person having at the door. As the door was not opened, the This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in No. 0009 dated 16.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 333 and Section 25 of the Arms Act on the basis of a complaint made by complainant Krishan Kumar son of Balwant Singh, resident of village Daiyar and presently residing at Kothi No. 292, HUDA Sector-3, Fatehabad. It was alleged that Ms. Malika, resident of village Daiyar, had been in relationship for about the last six months. On 16.01.2025 at about 12:05 PM, when Ms. Malika was present at the aforesaid house, petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva along with one unknown person having at the door. As the door was not opened, the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66712- complainant dialed the emergency number ‘112’ and informed the police. On getting information, both the accused persons started fleeing from the spot, upon which the complainant along with Ms. Malika chased them petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva allegedly took out a pistol and, while running towards the house, fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Ms. Malika, however the bullet passed by them and hit the door. It was f that another unknown person accompanying the petitioner was also armed with a pistol. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and Ms. Malika, the assailants fled away from the spot while extending threats to kill them in future. It was further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute relating to financial transactions with Randhir, father of the petitioner, and that earlier also a quarrel had taken place in the village between the parties. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence whatsoever. It is argued that the FIR was lodged on the state Krishan Kumar on account of a dispute relating to financial transactions with the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant himself was residing in a live petitioner, and due to the said dispute the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the allegations in the FIR, no injury has been caused to the complainant or to Malika a alleged gunshot did not hit any person. Learned counsel further submits that in the subsequent supplementary statement of the complainant recorded during investigation, he himself clarified that the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and -2025 (O&M) complainant dialed the emergency number ‘112’ and informed the police. On getting information, both the accused persons started fleeing from the spot, upon which the complainant along with Ms. Malika chased them petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva allegedly took out a pistol and, while running towards the house, fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Ms. Malika, however the bullet passed by them and hit the door. It was f that another unknown person accompanying the petitioner was also armed with a pistol. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and Ms. Malika, the assailants fled away from the spot while extending threats to kill them in future. It s further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute relating to financial transactions with Randhir, father of the petitioner, and that earlier also a quarrel had taken place in the village between the parties. On the basis of these ations, the present FIR was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence whatsoever. It is argued that the FIR was lodged on the state Krishan Kumar on account of a dispute relating to financial transactions with the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant himself was residing in a live-in relationship with Malika, who happens to be the m petitioner, and due to the said dispute the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the allegations in the FIR, no injury has been caused to the complainant or to Malika a alleged gunshot did not hit any person. Learned counsel further submits that in the subsequent supplementary statement of the complainant recorded during investigation, he himself clarified that the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and -2- complainant dialed the emergency number ‘112’ and informed the police. On getting information, both the accused persons started fleeing from the spot, upon which the complainant along with Ms. Malika chased them. During the chase, the petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva allegedly took out a pistol and, while running towards the house, fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Ms. Malika, however the bullet passed by them and hit the door. It was further alleged that another unknown person accompanying the petitioner was also armed with a pistol. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and Ms. Malika, the assailants fled away from the spot while extending threats to kill them in future. It s further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute relating to financial transactions with Randhir, father of the petitioner, and that earlier also a quarrel had taken place in the village between the parties. On the basis of these Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence whatsoever. It is argued that the FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant Krishan Kumar on account of a dispute relating to financial transactions with the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant himself was in relationship with Malika, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner, and due to the said dispute the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the allegations in the FIR, no injury has been caused to the complainant or to Malika and the alleged gunshot did not hit any person. Learned counsel further submits that in the subsequent supplementary statement of the complainant recorded during investigation, he himself clarified that the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and complainant dialed the emergency number ‘112’ and informed the police. On getting information, both the accused persons started fleeing from the spot, upon . During the chase, the petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva allegedly took out a pistol and, while running towards the house, fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Ms. urther alleged that another unknown person accompanying the petitioner was also armed with a pistol. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and Ms. Malika, the assailants fled away from the spot while extending threats to kill them in future. It s further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute relating to financial transactions with Randhir, father of the petitioner, and that earlier also a quarrel had taken place in the village between the parties. On the basis of these Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence ment of complainant Krishan Kumar on account of a dispute relating to financial transactions with the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant himself was other of the petitioner, and due to the said dispute the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. It is further contended that even as per the allegations nd the alleged gunshot did not hit any person. Learned counsel further submits that in the subsequent supplementary statement of the complainant recorded during investigation, he himself clarified that the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66712- that the allegation regarding firing by the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR in haste. It is also argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as the alleged weapon has already been recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2025 and has remained in custody for about one year, one month and eighteen days. It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, it is pr 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner entered the house of the complainant while armed with a pistol and fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Malika and thereafter fled away from the spot while extending threats. Learned State counsel s firing with a firearm create panic and pose a serious threat to public safety and therefore the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail merely on the ground of custody. It is further argued that the investigation was con accordance with law and the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court is of the considered view allowed. 6. As per the allegations in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he allegedly fired a shot from a pistol, caused to the complainant or to any other person and thus it is a no is further noteworthy that during the course of investigation the complainant -2025 (O&M) e allegation regarding firing by the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR in haste. It is also argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as the alleged weapon has already been recovered. Learned counsel further submits that r was arrested on 19.01.2025 and has remained in custody for about one year, one month and eighteen days. It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner along with another unknown person entered the house of the complainant while armed with a pistol and fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Malika and thereafter fled away from the spot while extending threats. Learned State counsel s firing with a firearm create panic and pose a serious threat to public safety and therefore the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail merely on the ground of custody. It is further argued that the investigation was con accordance with law and the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be As per the allegations in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is edly fired a shot from a pistol, however, admittedly no injury has been caused to the complainant or to any other person and thus it is a no is further noteworthy that during the course of investigation the complainant -3- e allegation regarding firing by the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR in haste. It is also argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as the alleged weapon has already been recovered. Learned counsel further submits that r was arrested on 19.01.2025 and has remained in custody for about one year, one month and eighteen days. It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. ayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in along with another unknown person entered the house of the complainant while armed with a pistol and fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Malika and thereafter fled away from the spot while extending threats. Learned State counsel submits that such acts of firing with a firearm create panic and pose a serious threat to public safety and therefore the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail merely on the ground of custody. It is further argued that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the that the present petition deserves to be As per the allegations in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is however, admittedly no injury has been caused to the complainant or to any other person and thus it is a no-injury case. It is further noteworthy that during the course of investigation the complainant e allegation regarding firing by the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR in haste. It is also argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as the alleged weapon has already been recovered. Learned counsel further submits that r was arrested on 19.01.2025 and has remained in custody for about one year, one month and eighteen days. It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in along with another unknown person entered the house of the complainant while armed with a pistol and fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant and Malika and thereafter fled away from ubmits that such acts of firing with a firearm create panic and pose a serious threat to public safety and therefore the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail merely on the ducted in accordance with law and the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the that the present petition deserves to be As per the allegations in the FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is however, admittedly no injury has been injury case. It is further noteworthy that during the course of investigation the complainant TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66712- himself made a supplementary statement clarifying tha the petitioner and that the earlier statement in the FIR had been made in haste. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.01.2025 and has already undergone custody of about one year, one month and eighteen days. The challan and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. No further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 7. In these circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the peti 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. 8. However, it is made clear that shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 07, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) himself made a supplementary statement clarifying tha the petitioner and that the earlier statement in the FIR had been made in haste. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.01.2025 and has already undergone custody of about one year, one month and eighteen days. The challan and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. No further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. In these circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the peti 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. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- himself made a supplementary statement clarifying that the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and that the earlier statement in the FIR had been made in haste. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.01.2025 and has already undergone custody of about one year, one month and eighteen days. The challan has been presented and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. No further recovery is to be In these circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva 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. any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE t the bullet was not fired by the petitioner and that the earlier statement in the FIR had been made in haste. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.01.2025 and has already undergone custody has been presented and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. No further recovery is to be In these circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the tioner Shiv Kumar alias Shiva is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to any observation made hereinabove All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document