Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 108540 (PNJ)

SONU v. UT OF CHANDIGARH

CRM-M/63671/2024 · 2025-09-02

Vinod S Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 274 CRM-M-63671-2024 Date of decision: 02.09.2025 SONU ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: - Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for respondent-U.T. Chandigarh. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition is for seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 163 dated 16.12.2022 under Sections 384, 383, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sector-26, Chandigarh. 2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on the statement(s)/complaint of Rishi Khanna S/o Raman Khanna, R/o # 89, Sector-71, Mohali, Punjab wherein he has reported that he received a whatsapp call from No.1 (251)399-0682 in which the caller VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.03 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-63671-2024 -2- disclosed his name as Lucky Patial, a dreaded gangster. However, he disconnected the call and blocked the number. On 14.12.2022, he again received a Whatsapp call from the number 1(256)330-7318 and recognized that it was the same person who had called him earlier. The caller threatened him to give Rs. 50 lakhs as ransom. He disconnected the call. After a few minutes, he received a call from his club Kakuna that some gangsters were firing outside the club in parking area. The said caller called again and told him that the firing outside his club was a result of not paying the ransom amount and not taking his calls seriously. The gangster Lucky Patial threatened him that this time they have only fired in the air and if he does not pay the extortion amount (which was raised to Rs. 1 crore) he would face serious consequences. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is alleged to have fired empty shots in front of the Club of the complainant and hence, he was in collusion with the Gangster namely Lucky Patial who had made the ransom call. Counsel contends that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 07 months and 05 days and only 02 witnesses have been examined out of a total of 22 witnesses cited by the prosecution. He contends that in another case registered against the petitioner, he has already been granted concession of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. 4. Counsel for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh contends that the petitioner is the key facilitator in extending the threat on behalf of the purported ransom caller. He contends that the delay in examination of prosecution evidence is on account of an application for discharge having VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.03 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-63671-2024 -3- been submitted by co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 6. In view of the facts noticed above and taking into consideration that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of nearly 02 years 07 months and 05 days and only 02 witnesses have been examined so far, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. 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. 9. 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) SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.03 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document