CRM-M-52094-2025 1 228(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52094-2025 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 SURYA PARTAP SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition is for regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.84 dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala, under Sections 287, 324(4), 324(5), 308(5), 111(3), 111(5), 61(2) of BNS and 25(6)/29 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.03.2025, at about 10.00 P.M., complainant Lalit Dhiman parked his car in front of his house. During the intervening night of 20.03.2025 and 21.03.2025 at about 1.30 A.M, he heard the sound of crackers and on the next day at about 7.00A.M, he saw that 2-3 persons had fired gun shots at his car. Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.23 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-52094-2025 2 With these allegations, the formal FIR got registered. Initially, one Sohan Lal Sharma was arrested, who suffered disclosure statement to the effect that Garav @ Garv had procured weapon from Sohan Lal Sharma and gave it to co-accused namely Manjeet, who had fired shots at the car of the complainant. After completion of investigation, challan has been presented for trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The offence in question was committed by unknown persons and petitioner has been arrested after he was nominated as an accused by one Shubham but the disclosure statement of co-accused Shubham is not admissible in evidence and cannot be used against him. Learned counsel further contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2025. Investigation has been completed and final report has already been presented. Trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude and petitioner may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner has committed a heinous offence. In view of the gravity of offence, petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 6. Offence in question was committed by unknown persons and no one has been named in the FIR. One Sohan Lal Sharma was initially arrested, who nominated one Garav @ Garv as an accused, who has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025. Said Garav @ Garv has nominated Deepak Sharma as the person, who Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.23 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-52094-2025 3 had handed over the weapon to Shubham Sharma. Said Shubham Sharma has nominated the present petitioner as the person, who on the asking of co-accused had allegedly procured country made pistol and 16 live cartridges along with his co-accused Deepak Sharma. As to how much evidentiary value will be attached to disclosure statement of co-accused will be subject matter of trial. Investigation stands completed and trial is likely to take long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioner is thus not required. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and conditions. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 22.09.2025 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.23 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document