CRM-M-71235- 125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Farman State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Ashish Grewal Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 234 dated 01.12.2022, initially registered under Sections 506, 336 and 285 of the Indian Penal Code, 186 and Sections 182, 211, 120 25(7) and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 (as amended by the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019) were added, registered at Police Station Rai Haryana. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 01.12.2022, P/SI Vijay, Incharge of Police Post, Mauli, along with other police officials, was present at Bus Stand, Mauli in connection with patrolling duty when he that at the main highway near Bus Stand, Golpura, some unknown persons had fired shots upon a Fortuner vehicle. Upon receiving the said information, the police party proceeded towards the spot, and on the way Vinay Gupta met them near -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. Ashish Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 234 dated 01.12.2022, initially registered under Sections 506, 336 and 285 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, however, the said sections were subsequently deleted and Sections 182, 211, 120-B and 201 of the IPC, 1860 along with Sections 25(6), 25(7) and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 (as amended by the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019) were added, registered at Police Station Rai he brief facts of the present case are that on 01.12.2022, P/SI Vijay, Incharge of Police Post, Mauli, along with other police officials, was present at Bus Stand, Mauli in connection with patrolling duty when he that at the main highway near Bus Stand, Golpura, some unknown persons had fired shots upon a Fortuner vehicle. Upon receiving the said information, the police party proceeded towards the spot, and on the way Vinay Gupta met them near -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71235-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 234 dated 01.12.2022, initially registered under Sections 506, 336 and 285 of the ver, the said sections were subsequently deleted B and 201 of the IPC, 1860 along with Sections 25(6), 25(7) and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 (as amended by the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019) were added, registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, he brief facts of the present case are that on 01.12.2022, P/SI Vijay, Incharge of Police Post, Mauli, along with other police officials, was present at Bus Stand, Mauli in connection with patrolling duty when he received information that at the main highway near Bus Stand, Golpura, some unknown persons had fired shots upon a Fortuner vehicle. Upon receiving the said information, the police party proceeded towards the spot, and on the way Vinay Gupta met them near the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 234 dated 01.12.2022, initially registered under Sections 506, 336 and 285 of the ver, the said sections were subsequently deleted B and 201 of the IPC, 1860 along with Sections 25(6), 25(7) and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 (as amended by the Arms (Amendment) Act, pur Rani, District Panchkula, he brief facts of the present case are that on 01.12.2022, P/SI Vijay, Incharge of Police Post, Mauli, along with other police officials, was present at received information that at the main highway near Bus Stand, Golpura, some unknown persons had fired shots upon a Fortuner vehicle. Upon receiving the said information, the police party proceeded towards the spot, and on the way Vinay Gupta met them near TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71235- Hotel Plaza along with the Fortuner bearing registration No. HNX over a complaint along with a blue colour polythene, two plastic gloves and an envelope containing a letter. On checking the vehicle, a hole was found on the rear left lamp and the letter contained threats asking the complainant to accede to certain demands, failing which he would face consequences. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR under Sections 285, 336 and 506 IPC was registered against unknown persons. During investig recovered from the place of occurrence and a fired bullet ( recovered from the rear lamp of the Fortuner, whereupon Section 285 IPC was deleted and Sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 195 Subsequently, co arrested in FIR No. 93 dated 10.03.2023 under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, confessed their involvement in the present case and were formally arrested after obtaining production warrants on 27.03.2023. However, further investigation revealed that co had allegedly hired Basant Kumar and Jasbir Kumar to fire upon him and had thereafter lodged a false compl 307, 336 and 506 IPC were deleted and Sections 182, 211 and 120 added. It was further revealed during investigation that the present petitioner had allegedly given the pistol to co to Sahil, and thereafter the said weapon came into the hands of Jasbir and Basant, who were hired by Vinay Gupta, the initial complainant, to fire upon him and fabricate a false case. 3. Learned counsel for the been falsely implicated in the present case, as he is neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him therein, and his involvement is sought -2025 (O&M) Hotel Plaza along with the Fortuner bearing registration No. HNX over a complaint along with a blue colour polythene, two plastic gloves and an envelope containing a letter. On checking the vehicle, a hole was found on the rear the letter contained threats asking the complainant to accede to certain demands, failing which he would face consequences. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR under Sections 285, 336 and 506 IPC was registered against unknown persons. During investigation, on 02.12.2022, a fired cartridge case was recovered from the place of occurrence and a fired bullet ( recovered from the rear lamp of the Fortuner, whereupon Section 285 IPC was deleted and Sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 195 Subsequently, co-accused Jasbir Singh and Basant Kumar, who were already arrested in FIR No. 93 dated 10.03.2023 under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, confessed their involvement in ase and were formally arrested after obtaining production warrants on 27.03.2023. However, further investigation revealed that co had allegedly hired Basant Kumar and Jasbir Kumar to fire upon him and had thereafter lodged a false complaint with the police, as a result of which Sections 307, 336 and 506 IPC were deleted and Sections 182, 211 and 120 added. It was further revealed during investigation that the present petitioner had allegedly given the pistol to co-accused Inderjeet Singh, who in turn handed it over to Sahil, and thereafter the said weapon came into the hands of Jasbir and Basant, who were hired by Vinay Gupta, the initial complainant, to fire upon him and fabricate a false case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that been falsely implicated in the present case, as he is neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him therein, and his involvement is sought -2- Hotel Plaza along with the Fortuner bearing registration No. HNX-37 and handed over a complaint along with a blue colour polythene, two plastic gloves and an envelope containing a letter. On checking the vehicle, a hole was found on the rear the letter contained threats asking the complainant to accede to certain demands, failing which he would face consequences. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR under Sections 285, 336 and 506 IPC was registered against ation, on 02.12.2022, a fired cartridge case was recovered from the place of occurrence and a fired bullet (goli sikka) was recovered from the rear lamp of the Fortuner, whereupon Section 285 IPC was deleted and Sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added. accused Jasbir Singh and Basant Kumar, who were already arrested in FIR No. 93 dated 10.03.2023 under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, confessed their involvement in ase and were formally arrested after obtaining production warrants on 27.03.2023. However, further investigation revealed that co-accused Vinay Gupta had allegedly hired Basant Kumar and Jasbir Kumar to fire upon him and had aint with the police, as a result of which Sections 307, 336 and 506 IPC were deleted and Sections 182, 211 and 120-B IPC were added. It was further revealed during investigation that the present petitioner had rjeet Singh, who in turn handed it over to Sahil, and thereafter the said weapon came into the hands of Jasbir and Basant, who were hired by Vinay Gupta, the initial complainant, to fire upon him and tioner contends that the petitioner been falsely implicated in the present case, as he is neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him therein, and his involvement is sought 37 and handed over a complaint along with a blue colour polythene, two plastic gloves and an envelope containing a letter. On checking the vehicle, a hole was found on the rear the letter contained threats asking the complainant to accede to certain demands, failing which he would face consequences. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR under Sections 285, 336 and 506 IPC was registered against ation, on 02.12.2022, a fired cartridge case was ) was recovered from the rear lamp of the Fortuner, whereupon Section 285 IPC was 9 were added. accused Jasbir Singh and Basant Kumar, who were already arrested in FIR No. 93 dated 10.03.2023 under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, confessed their involvement in ase and were formally arrested after obtaining production warrants on accused Vinay Gupta had allegedly hired Basant Kumar and Jasbir Kumar to fire upon him and had aint with the police, as a result of which Sections B IPC were added. It was further revealed during investigation that the present petitioner had rjeet Singh, who in turn handed it over to Sahil, and thereafter the said weapon came into the hands of Jasbir and Basant, who were hired by Vinay Gupta, the initial complainant, to fire upon him and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he is neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him therein, and his involvement is sought TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71235- to be established merely on the basis of an inadm co-accused. It is submitted that he has no nexus either with the co the complainant and no offence is made out against him. The alleged weapon has already been recovered and nothing remains to b therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025, the investigation stands completed and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been presented evidence. It is further urged that the complainant, who has been arrayed as an accused, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and co Inderjeet has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Panchkula and on the ground of parity also the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of reg and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence wherein a conspiracy was hatched to stage firing and lodge a false complaint. It is contended that the pistol allegedly used in the occurrence was circulated through the petitioner and that he played an active role in facilitating the commission of the offence. The State further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other criminal cases of similar nature and is stated to be an active member of a criminal gang, and even an award has allegedly been declared against him. It is argued that in view of his criminal antecedents and the gravity of allegations, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present petitioner is limited to the extent that he allegedly handed over the pistol to co -2025 (O&M) to be established merely on the basis of an inadm accused. It is submitted that he has no nexus either with the co the complainant and no offence is made out against him. The alleged weapon has already been recovered and nothing remains to b therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025, the investigation stands completed and the report under Section P.C. has already been presented and the trial is pending evidence. It is further urged that the complainant, who has been arrayed as an accused, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and co Inderjeet has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Panchkula and on the ground of parity also the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of reg and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence wherein a conspiracy was hatched to stage firing and lodge a false complaint. It is contended that the pistol allegedly used in the occurrence was circulated through the r and that he played an active role in facilitating the commission of the offence. The State further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other criminal cases of similar nature and is stated to be an active member of a criminal n an award has allegedly been declared against him. It is argued that in view of his criminal antecedents and the gravity of allegations, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present petitioner is limited to the extent that he allegedly handed over the pistol to co -3- to be established merely on the basis of an inadmissible disclosure statement of a accused. It is submitted that he has no nexus either with the co-accused or with the complainant and no offence is made out against him. The alleged weapon has already been recovered and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025, the investigation stands completed and the report under Section and the trial is pending for prosecution evidence. It is further urged that the complainant, who has been arrayed as an accused, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and co-accused Inderjeet has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Panchkula and on the ground of parity also the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence wherein a conspiracy was hatched to stage firing and lodge a false complaint. It is contended that the pistol allegedly used in the occurrence was circulated through the r and that he played an active role in facilitating the commission of the offence. The State further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other criminal cases of similar nature and is stated to be an active member of a criminal n an award has allegedly been declared against him. It is argued that in view of his criminal antecedents and the gravity of allegations, he does not After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present petitioner is limited to the extent that he allegedly handed over the pistol to co-accused Inderjeet Singh, issible disclosure statement of a accused or with the complainant and no offence is made out against him. The alleged weapon has from the petitioner, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025, the investigation stands completed and the report under Section for prosecution evidence. It is further urged that the complainant, who has been arrayed as an accused Inderjeet has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula and on the ground of parity also the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the ular bail and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence wherein a conspiracy was hatched to stage firing and lodge a false complaint. It is contended that the pistol allegedly used in the occurrence was circulated through the r and that he played an active role in facilitating the commission of the offence. The State further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other criminal cases of similar nature and is stated to be an active member of a criminal n an award has allegedly been declared against him. It is argued that in view of his criminal antecedents and the gravity of allegations, he does not After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present petitioner is limited to the accused Inderjeet Singh, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71235- which thereafter cha Jasbir and Basant. The weapon in question has already been recovered and no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The main accused, including Vinay Gupta (the initial complainant), h bail. The investigation stands completed, supplementary challan has been presented against the petitioner, and the charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025. Mere pendency o cases cannot be a sole ground to deny bail, particularly when no conviction has been brought to the notice of this Court. 6. In view of the nature of allegations, the limited role attributed to the petitioner, the fact of recovery having parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regu bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 8. However, an expression on the merits of the case during trial. 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 05, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) which thereafter changed hands and was ultimately recovered from co Jasbir and Basant. The weapon in question has already been recovered and no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The main accused, including Vinay Gupta (the initial complainant), have already been granted the concession of bail. The investigation stands completed, supplementary challan has been presented against the petitioner, and the charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025. Mere pendency o cases cannot be a sole ground to deny bail, particularly when no conviction has been brought to the notice of this Court. In view of the nature of allegations, the limited role attributed to the petitioner, the fact of recovery having already been effected, and the principle of parity, 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 bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- nged hands and was ultimately recovered from co-accused Jasbir and Basant. The weapon in question has already been recovered and no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The main accused, including ave already been granted the concession of bail. The investigation stands completed, supplementary challan has been presented against the petitioner, and the charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025. Mere pendency of other criminal cases cannot be a sole ground to deny bail, particularly when no conviction has In view of the nature of allegations, the limited role attributed to the already been effected, and the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is lar bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No accused Jasbir and Basant. The weapon in question has already been recovered and no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The main accused, including ave already been granted the concession of bail. The investigation stands completed, supplementary challan has been presented against the petitioner, and the charges are yet to be framed. The f other criminal cases cannot be a sole ground to deny bail, particularly when no conviction has In view of the nature of allegations, the limited role attributed to the already been effected, and the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is lar bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document