IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 CRM-M-51888-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Veer Singh ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Ajay Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG Haryana. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) CRM-37134-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Main case: 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in FIR bearing No.52 dated 12.02.2024, registered under Sections 186, 307, 332, 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sirsa. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Inspector Ravinder Kumar, CIA-2 Bhiwani. It was averred therein that FIR No. 37 got registered on 09.02.2024 under section 365 IPC at Police Station Tosham regarding kidnapping of Raghav, son of Manoj by certain unknown persons. Investigation in the said FIR was being carried out by a joint team comprising Inspector Yogesh Kumar, Inspector Ravinder Kumar, Inspector Kuldeep and ASI Ramesh Kumar along with their teams. On 11.02.2024, at MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.19 16:55 I am the author of this document 2 206 CRM-M-51888-2025 (O&M) about 10:00 p.m., while the police teams were present at Bhumanshah Chowk, Sirsa, in search of the accused persons and the kidnapped child, they received secret information that a chocolate-coloured Ertiga car, in which the kidnapped child along with four boys was travelling, had been seen roaming in Chattargarh Patti, Sirsa, armed with illegal weapons. It was further conveyed that the accused might cause harm to the kidnapped child or commit some other criminal act. 3. On receipt of the said information, several teams were constituted and the colony was surrounded. At about 10:50 p.m., near Shiv Temple in Chattargarh Patti Colony, the police party noticed the said Ertiga car. When an attempt was made to intercept the vehicle, its driver tried to push the official vehicle aside, narrowly averting an accident. Information was simultaneously relayed to the Control Room for setting up a naka. Thereafter, while attempts were made to block the vehicle, it was driven into a vacant plot where it eventually got stuck. 4. Four young boys alighted from the car and attempted to flee. During the chase, one of the boys, wearing a grey jacket and black trousers, fired a shot at ASI Anand, who narrowly escaped. Another boy, dressed in a white-and-black shirt and blue jeans, fired at ASI Sajjan with the intention to kill him, but the bullet missed. In retaliation, Inspector Ravinder fired a warning shot in the air, but the assailants continued to fire at the police party. In self-defence, Inspector Yogesh fired at the leg of the first boy, causing him to fall, while Inspector Ravinder similarly fired at the second boy, hitting him in the leg and disarming him. 5. Upon apprehension, the injured boys disclosed their names as MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.19 16:55 I am the author of this document 3 206 CRM-M-51888-2025 (O&M) Sudarshan @ Sandeep and Khetu, while another apprehended accused disclosed his name as Ravi. The fourth accomplice, who managed to flee, was named as Lekhu @ Veer (the present applicant). The kidnapped child was recovered from the rear seat of the Ertiga car, with his hands and mouth tied with tape. Upon being freed, he disclosed his name as Raghav, son of Manoj, resident of Tosham, and stated that he had been kidnapped by the accused on 09.02.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. 6. The injured accused were shifted to Government Hospital, Sirsa, for treatment, while the rescued child was entrusted to ASI Ramesh Kumar for being taken to District Bhiwani. On receipt of information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, reached the spot. Since the accused had attempted to hit the police vehicle, fired shots at the police party with intent to kill, and obstructed them in the discharge of their official duties, a complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of the present FIR against the accused persons, including the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.02.2024. He submits that out of the total 16 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. He further contends that similarly placed co- accused/Sudarshan @ Sandeep has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in CRM-M- 51423-2025. 8. Learned counsel for respondent-State is not in a position to dispute as to how the case of the petitioner is not on a better footing as MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.19 16:55 I am the author of this document 4 206 CRM-M-51888-2025 (O&M) compared to the co-accused/Sudarshan @ Sandeep. It is not in dispute that said co-accused was attributed the role of having fired gun shots whereas no such role has been attributed to the petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period of actual custody period of the petitioner, stage of the trial, the fact that the case of the petitioner is on better footing as compared to co-accused/Sudarshan @ Sandeep, who has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 and bearing in mind that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, I deem it fit to allow the instant petition. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned. 11. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 12. 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. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 19.09.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.19 16:55 I am the author of this document