CRM-M-24394- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (246) AMIT @ MITA STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 103(1), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) of Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kheri 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant his younger brother Rohit, who was involved in the business of property dealing had left their house on the evening of 04.08.2025 for the purpose of going to Noida for some work. He had taken the vehicle of the complai him. On the same night, he received intimation about his brother being shot at by someone. He had reached at the informed place and had found his dead body -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AMIT @ MITA Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 103(1), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) of Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 25(1 Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kheri Daula, District Gurugram. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Vijay Shaukeen alleging therein that his younger brother Rohit, who was involved in the business of property dealing had left their house on the evening of 04.08.2025 for the purpose of going to Noida for some work. He had taken the vehicle of the complai him. On the same night, he received intimation about his brother being shot at by someone. He had reached at the informed place and had found his dead body IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24394-2026 (O&M) Date of decision :16.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.323 dated 05.08.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 27(1) and 29-B of the Daula, District Gurugram. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Vijay Shaukeen alleging therein that his younger brother Rohit, who was involved in the business of property dealing had left their house on the evening of 04.08.2025 for the purpose of going to Noida for some work. He had taken the vehicle of the complainant alongwith him. On the same night, he received intimation about his brother being shot at by someone. He had reached at the informed place and had found his dead body (O&M) 2026 filed by the petitioner under Section seeking 323 dated 05.08.2025 yaya B of the The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Vijay Shaukeen alleging therein that his younger brother Rohit, who was involved in the business of property dealing had left their house on the evening of 04.08.2025 for the purpose of going to nant alongwith him. On the same night, he received intimation about his brother being shot at by someone. He had reached at the informed place and had found his dead body AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24394- to be lying there. By alleging that some unknown assailant had killed his brother, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The accused Shakti, who was in custody in connection with another c No.567 of 2025 suffered a disclosure statement on the basis of which he alongwith the accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ Go nominated as accused in this case. The accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ Gogi and Sudeep were apprehe joined into investigation of this case. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. Accused Shakti also got recovered the cellphone used at commission of crime. Subsequently arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements about their complicity in the crime. Two more persons namely Vinod @ Pahlwan and Padam @ Raja were subsequently arreste recovered the cellphone of the victim and the motorcycle used in the crime. Accused Sunil @ Sardhania was arrested on 06.01.2026, on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner was nomi was arrested on 07.01.2026. Recovery of 02 mobile phones was effected from him. Offence under Section 29 petitioner stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the peti falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co -2026 (O&M) 2 to be lying there. By alleging that some unknown assailant had killed his he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The accused Shakti, who was in custody in connection with another c No.567 of 2025 suffered a disclosure statement on the basis of which he alongwith the accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ Go nominated as accused in this case. The accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ Gogi and Sudeep were apprehended. They alongwith joined into investigation of this case. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. Accused Shakti also got recovered the cellphone used at commission of crime. Subsequently, accused arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements about their complicity in the crime. Two more persons namely Vinod @ Pahlwan and Padam @ Raja were subsequently arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements and got recovered the cellphone of the victim and the motorcycle used in the crime. Accused Sunil @ Sardhania was arrested on 06.01.2026, on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner was nomi was arrested on 07.01.2026. Recovery of 02 mobile phones was effected from him. Offence under Section 29-B of Arms Act was added. Investigation qua the petitioner stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the peti falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co to be lying there. By alleging that some unknown assailant had killed his he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The accused Shakti, who was in custody in connection with another case bearing FIR No.567 of 2025 suffered a disclosure statement on the basis of which he alongwith the accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ Gogi and Sudeep was nominated as accused in this case. The accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ nded. They alongwith accused Shakti were joined into investigation of this case. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of occurrence. Accused Shakti also got recovered the cellphone used at the time of accused Kamal and Kuldeep were also arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements about their complicity in the crime. Two more persons namely Vinod @ Pahlwan and Padam @ Raja were d. They too suffered disclosure statements and got recovered the cellphone of the victim and the motorcycle used in the crime. Accused Sunil @ Sardhania was arrested on 06.01.2026, on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested on 07.01.2026. Recovery of 02 mobile phones was effected from of Arms Act was added. Investigation qua the It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused to be lying there. By alleging that some unknown assailant had killed his After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The ase bearing FIR No.567 of 2025 suffered a disclosure statement on the basis of which he i and Sudeep was nominated as accused in this case. The accused Shubham @ Kala, Gautam @ accused Shakti were joined into investigation of this case. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and demarcated the place of the time of Kamal and Kuldeep were also arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements about their complicity in the crime. Two more persons namely Vinod @ Pahlwan and Padam @ Raja were d. They too suffered disclosure statements and got recovered the cellphone of the victim and the motorcycle used in the crime. Accused Sunil @ Sardhania was arrested on 06.01.2026, on the basis of his nated as an accused and was arrested on 07.01.2026. Recovery of 02 mobile phones was effected from of Arms Act was added. Investigation qua the tioner that he has been accused AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24394- which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. He was neither present at the place of occurrence nor specific overt act has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him. The role allegedly played by him is limited He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Only on account of his involvement in some other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while re report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender being involved in 03 other cases as well. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended be of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. As per the status report he was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy hatched with the co accused to commit murder of the victim and had facilitated supply of firearms and ammunition used in the commission of the offence. The role him is distinct from principal homicidal act. He was not named in the FIR. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and the supply of arms, primarily rests on disclosure statement of the co inferences. Undoubted -2026 (O&M) 3 which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. He was neither present at the place of occurrence nor specific overt act has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him. The role allegedly played by him is limited He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His carceration would not serve any useful purpose. Only on account of his involvement in some other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel while re report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender being involved in 03 other cases as well. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended be of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. As per the status report, the role attributed to the pe he was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy hatched with the co accused to commit murder of the victim and had facilitated supply of firearms and ammunition used in the commission of the offence. The role is distinct from principal homicidal act. He was not named in the FIR. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and the supply of arms, primarily rests on disclosure statement of the co inferences. Undoubtedly, the offence of committing murder is serious in nature, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. He was neither present at the place of occurrence nor any specific overt act has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him. The role allegedly played by him is limited and secondary in nature. He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His carceration would not serve any useful purpose. Only on account of his involvement in some other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender being involved in 03 other cases as well. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel the role attributed to the petitioner is that he was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy hatched with the co- accused to commit murder of the victim and had facilitated supply of firearms and ammunition used in the commission of the offence. The role so attributed to is distinct from principal homicidal act. He was not named in the FIR. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and the supply of arms, primarily rests on disclosure statement of the co-accused and circumstantial the offence of committing murder is serious in nature, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not any specific overt act has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected and secondary in nature. He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His carceration would not serve any useful purpose. Only on account of his involvement in some other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, lying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender being involved in 03 other cases as nefit This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel that - accused to commit murder of the victim and had facilitated supply of firearms attributed to is distinct from principal homicidal act. He was not named in the FIR. The linkage sought to be established between the petitioner and the supply of arms, accused and circumstantial the offence of committing murder is serious in nature, AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24394- however, for the purposes of the petitioner, this Court is required to test whether the material against him justifies continued pre the nature of the allegations a circumstances peculiar to the case, the limited role as ascribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Moreso, a been booked only for commission of offence punishable under Section 29(B) of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions : (i) inducement, threat or promise to any p facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) of hearing. (iv) well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing t -2026 (O&M) 4 however, for the purposes of the petitioner, this Court is required to test whether the material against him justifies continued pre the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the circumstances peculiar to the case, the limited role as ascribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Moreso, as per the grounds of arrest, he has been booked only for commission of offence punishable under Section 29(B) of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any p facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. however, for the purposes of the petitioner, this Court is required to test whether the material against him justifies continued pre-trial incarceration. In view of s levelled against the petitioner and the circumstances peculiar to the case, the limited role as ascribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner s per the grounds of arrest, he has been booked only for commission of offence punishable under Section 29(B) of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions :- The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. shall appear before each and every date The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without however, for the purposes of the petitioner, this Court is required to test whether trial incarceration. In view of s levelled against the petitioner and the circumstances peculiar to the case, the limited role as ascribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner s per the grounds of arrest, he has been booked only for commission of offence punishable under Section 29(B) of and the petitioner is ordered well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any erson acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any The petitioner shall not leave the country under any shall appear before each and every date The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24394- (v) PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes p shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) the learned trial Court. 8. In the eventuality of breach o conditions, the respondent seeking cancellation of the bail. 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition on the merits of the case. 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 16.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes p shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the learned trial Court. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with f any of the aforementioned State shall be at liberty to move an application It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in lace, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with f any of the aforementioned State shall be at liberty to move an application It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.