CRM-M-69505- IN THE H (237) VISHNU STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 10.05.2024 registe B)a, 25(6), 25(1) a Gurugram. 2. As pe the aforementione members of Law Lipan Nehra and P money from busin operating from fo them were into co was also informed -2025 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Amit Pruthi, Advocate for the pet Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi registered under Sections 386, 506, 1 25(1) and 29(B) of Arms Act at Police As per the allegations, on 10.05.2024 entioned police station, received a s f Lawrence Bishnoi gang, namely R and Pawan Nehra, were active in the businessmen and rich people, the ma om foreign countries, some of them w into contact with each other through d formed that they had even got murd JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-69505-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner aryana petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.114 dated 506, 120B of IPC and Section 25(1- Police Station Farukhnagar, District .2024, ASI Sanjay Kumar, posted at ed a secret information that some ely Rohit Godara, Naveen Boxer, the city of Gurugram for extorting the main members of the group were them were lodged in jails and all of ough different social media apps. It murdered one businessman Sachin M) 2026 ioner short ated - strict ed at some oxer, rting were ll of s. It chin AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69505- Goda in Rohtak. raised demand of r Store, Gurugram. members of the contraband, ransom basis of this inform proceedings were arrested on 10.05 countrymade pisto identification, co petitioner were arr live cartridges and effected from the Investigation now 3. It is a falsely implicated named in the FIR statement of the c admissible in evid benefit of bail. O does not have any detaining him in c deserves to be exte -2025 2 htak. One of the members of this ga nd of ransom money of Rs.2 crores fro gram. It was informed that if the abov f the gang were apprehended and in ransom money and weapons could be information, the aforementioned FIR were initiated. During investigation, 10.05.2024. Recovery of two m pistol alongwith five live cartridges w n, co-accused Jagdish @ Jaggu, Pa ere arrested on 12.05.2024. Recovery es and 01 Honda City vehicle which w m the petitioner. Subsequently, o n now stands completed. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He is in custody s FIR and has been involved in this c f the co-accused Dinesh @ Dinu whic in evidence. Most of the co-accused ail. On parity, he too deserves to be e ve any criminal antecedents. No usefu m in custody anymore. It is, therefo be extended the benefit of bail. this gang namely Rohit Godara had res from owner of Maniram Grocery e above mentioned persons and other and interrogated, huge quantity of uld be recovered from them. On the FIR was registered. Investigation gation, accused Dinesh @ Dinu was wo mobile phones, one .30 bore idges was effected from him. On his u, Pardeep, Sagar and the present covery of one .30 bore pistol and 05 hich was used in the crime, had been ntly, other accused were arrested. l for the petitioner that he has been stody since 12.05.2024. He was not this case on the basis of disclosure u which cannot be considered to be ccused have already been extended to be extended the same benefit. He o useful purpose would be served by herefore, stressed that the petitioner had cery other ty of n the ation was bore n his esent d 05 been sted. been s not sure to be nded He d by ioner AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69505- 4. Per c petitioner is a me involved in extort threats to them. T facilitated purchas Rohit Godara and other members of Some of the co-ac his committing sim therefore, stressed 5. This parties. 6. The alleged to have f ammunitions for businessmen by ra The petitioner is i allegations leveled the co-accused. since no prosecut would be served accused have alre deserves to be ext that pre-trial incar -2025 3 Per contra, learned State counsel ha a member of a gang operated by L extorting money from businessmen a em. The petitioner was actively involv urchase of Honda City vehicle, on ra and had also facilitated obtaining ers of the gang. Recovery of arms accused are still to be arrested in t ing similar offences or absconding, if ressed that the petition does not deserv This Court has heard the rival sub The petitioner is alleged to be a mem have facilitated purchase of a Honda s for the purpose of committing by raising demand of ransom money is in custody for over a period of eveled against him are based on the di sed. The trial will obviously take c osecution witness has been examined erved by detaining the petitioner in already been extended benefit of b be extended the same benefit. It is w l incarceration should not be a replica sel has vehemently argued that the d by Lawrence Bishnoi, which was men and professionals by extending involved with the said gang and had e, on the asking of the co-accused aining of arms and ammunitions to arms has been effected from him. ed in the case. There are chances of ing, if extended benefit of bail. It is, deserve to be allowed. al submissions made by both the a member of a notorious gang. He is Honda City vehicle and arms and itting the offences of threatening oney and extending threats to them. iod of 01 year and 08 months. The the disclosure statement suffered by take considerable time to conclude amined so far. No fruitful purpose ner in custody anymore. The co- of bail. On parity, the petitioner It is well settled proposition of law replica of post-conviction sentencing t the was ding had used ns to him. es of It is, the He is and ning hem. The d by lude pose - ioner f law cing AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69505- and that bail is th above discussed f out a case for gran the petitioner is or as well as surety Judicial Magistrate 7. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. Since any, is rendered in 04.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 4 is the rule and jail is an exception. ssed facts, this Court is of the opinio grant of bail at this stage. According r is ordered to be released on bail sub surety bonds to the satisfaction of gistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
. Taking into consideration the opinion that the petitioner has made ordingly, the petition is allowed and ail subject to his furnishing personal n of the learned trial Court/Chief y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
n the ade and sonal hief t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.