IN THE 228 Vipin Kumar State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Ms. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 109(1), 25 of the Arms Faridabad. 2. Briefly 04.12.2024, ASI Sunil, Constable vehicle, were present and patrolling duty Faridabad, that the man. On receipt colleagues, reached Mahender Singh 04.12.2024, he, Harkesh, Constable driver of the government in connection THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73825 Date of decision: VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Astt. AG, Haryana ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.309 dated 04.12.2024 109(1), 132, 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Briefly stated, the facts of the ASI Sandeep Singh along with Constable Manjit and SPO Ram Kishan, present at ‘Master Road' in connection duty.Information was received from the team of Crime Branch, Sector receipt of said information, ASI Sandeep reached near Godraj Society, Sector Singh presented a written complaint , along with his colleague HC Constable Sanjay, Constable Sikander government vehicle Bolero, was present with crime detection and patrolling PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 73825-2025(O&M) decision: 14.01.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ petitioner. Haryana. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 04.12.2024 registered under Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section Station BPTP, Faridabad, District present case are that on HC Sube Singh, Constable Kishan, driver of the government connection with crime detection from the Police Control Room, ctor 85,had an encounter with a Sandeep Singh, along with his Sector 78, ВРТР. Faridabad. SI complaint stating therein that on HC Sandeep Singh, Constable Sikander and Constable Navneet, present at 'Chandela Chowk’ patrolling duty. An informer SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.16 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 228 CRM-M-73825-2025(O&M) informed SI Mahender that a man, namely, Vipin, resident of K.L.J. Society, Sector 77, Faridabad, along with his associates, had committed several crimes in recent times. The informer further revealed that Vipin was carrying an illegal weapon and was going to village Bhatola in a Mahindra SUV to commit a crime. Thereafter, SI Mahender saw that a Mahindra SUV 500 bearing registration No. UP 14CP 0029 had been going at high speed and he directed his driver to chase the said vehicle. The driver of the Mahindra SUV tried to hit the Police Vehicle but he stopped near a rainy drain. He then stepped down from his car and opened fire on the police officials with the intention of killing them. However, the police party overpowered him and he received a bullet injury in the right foot. Subsequently, crime scene photographer Shyam and higher police officials were called to the spot and videography of the place of the incident was conducted. The apprehended person revealed his identity as Vipin Kumar (petitioner herein) and a .315 bore pistol was recovered from him. The present FIR thus came to be registered against the petitioner for obstructing government officials, opening fire upon a police party and possessing an illegal weapon. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the final report submitted by the police in the present case wherein it has been mentioned that the pistol recovered from the petitioner could not be opened. He contends that it is highly suspicious that the petitioner could have fired at the police party. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 04.12.2024 and has already undergone an actual custody of more than 01 year. He further contends that only 01 out of 20 witnesses has been examined so far. The trial is thus likely to take long. He further SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.16 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 228 CRM-M-73825-2025(O&M) contends that even though the petitioner sustained an injury on his knee in the alleged exchange of fire, however, none of the members of the police party has received any injury, thus rendering the prosecution version doubtful. 4. State counsel on instructions from ASI Subay Singh/3137/FBD contends that the petitioner had opened fire at the police party. She further contends that the petitioner is a history-sheeter and is involved in many cases. She further contends that even though it has been recorded in the final report that the pistol could not be opened, the said pistol has already been sent for forensic examination to the FSL and a report is still awaited. Hence, the contention of the petitioner to the effect that no cartridge could be fired therefrom cannot be accepted at this juncture. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition, as also the contentions made. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of more than 01 year. It is further not disputed that no member of the police party had sustained any injury in the incident in question. Moreover, only 01 witness has been examined so far out of a total of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution; hence, the trial would take a long time before it concludes. 6. Involvement of any accused in a large number of cases might be a relevant factor for the rejection of regular bail; however, the same would not be a circumstance as would deprive an accused of the concession of regular bail. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as noticed hereinabove, the actual custody of more than 1 year undergone by the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.16 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 228 CRM-M-73825-2025(O&M) petitioner; arguable issues pertaining to the weapon recovered from the petitioner being capable of being fired from; his clean antecedents as well as the stage of the trial,I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. 8. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing the requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 14.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.16 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document