CRM-M-2586-2025 221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Boby State of Haryana CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) short ‘Arms Act’), 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) & Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 short ‘Arms Act’), at Police Station Chandhut, District Palwal. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “To, SHO Chandhat. Sir, I Bittu S/o Shrichand caste Nai, am a resident of Alawalpur, Mohalla Laddu Ka. We were three brothers. The eldest is Rahul@ Monty, then Bittu and the youngest is Pankaj. Today evening at about 8 o'clock my brother received a call to see the buffalo of Lakhanpal S/o Shimbhu Dayal caste Brahmin in villag give medicine, on which my brother went on his motorcycle to give medicine to the buffalo. When he reached his plot, the accused Bobby S/o Narveer @ Pappu R/o Alavalpur caste Jat and with him his father 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2586-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: July 24, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.183 dated 18.06.2016, ences punishable under Sections 302, 506 of the Indian Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for Chandhut, District Palwal. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present To, SHO Chandhat. Sir, I Bittu S/o Shrichand caste Nai, am a of Alawalpur, Mohalla Laddu Ka. We were three brothers. The eldest is Rahul@ Monty, then Bittu and the youngest is Pankaj. Today evening at about 8 o'clock my brother received a call to see the buffalo of Shimbhu Dayal caste Brahmin in village Alavalpur i.e. to give medicine, on which my brother went on his motorcycle to give When he reached his plot, the accused Bobby S/o Narveer @ Pappu R/o Alavalpur caste Jat and with him his father 1 2025 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , s 302, 506 of the Indian (for The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present To, SHO Chandhat. Sir, I Bittu S/o Shrichand caste Nai, am a of Alawalpur, Mohalla Laddu Ka. We were three brothers. The eldest is Rahul@ Monty, then Bittu and the youngest is Pankaj. Today evening at about 8 o'clock my brother received a call to see the buffalo of e Alavalpur i.e. to give medicine, on which my brother went on his motorcycle to give When he reached his plot, the accused Bobby S/o Narveer @ Pappu R/o Alavalpur caste Jat and with him his father MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-2586-2025 pas police. The doctor here also declared him dead and got his dead body kept family members came to our house with weapons to kill us. We had 3. petitioner was arrest concession of bail petitioner surrendered back continuous custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that attributable to the petitioner. cogent evidence has yet petitioner qua 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he 2025 (O&M) Narveer @ Pappu, and his uncle Bhambal @ Jagbir and two men were standing there. As soon as @ Jagbir said to Bobby that I have come, shot my brother three times with a pistol from the passing through the square. Hearing the gunshot saw this incident with my own eyes and when I shouted they all ran away. I shouted and called my family members. Hearing this the neighbours came there. We were taking him to Palwal hosp car and on the way we informed the police station and the police took my brother's statement in which he told the police that Bobby S/o Narveer @ Pappu had shot him. After taking the statement the police said that you should take him to the hospital as soon as possible. When we took the doctor and they asked him, he also told them (my brother) Bobby name and he breathed his last in Apex hospital and the doctor declared him dead and then we brought him to the government hosp police. The doctor here also declared him dead and got his dead body kept in the mortuary. This incident with my brother was deliberately caused by the accused due to old enmity. About one and a quarter years ago, my brother had a fight with the accused over playing, due to which all his family members came to our house with weapons to kill us. We had reported the matter to the police station. Later, the matter was settled in the Panchayat, but this entire family had enmity with us and threaten to kill us from time to time. The accused are gangsters and quarrelsome people. Strictest legal action should be taken against the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2016, whereinafter, he was extended the concession of bail on 21.01.2020 on account of juvenility. surrendered back to the custody continuous custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that there is delay in culmination of trial and the same is not attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that no cogent evidence has yet come on record to indicate culpability of the qua offence in question. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail 2 Bhambal @ Jagbir and two-three other men were standing there. As soon as my brother reached there, Bhambal @ Jagbir said to Bobby that I have come, shoot him. Thereafter Bobby shot my brother three times with a pistol from the front. At that time I was sing through the square. Hearing the gunshot I also reached there and saw this incident with my own eyes and when I shouted they all ran away. I shouted and called my family members. Hearing this the neighbours came there. We were taking him to Palwal hospital in Ramkishan's Bolero car and on the way we informed the police station and the police took my brother's statement in which he told the police that Bobby S/o Narveer @ Pappu had shot him. After taking the statement the police said that you him to the hospital as soon as possible. When we took him to the doctor and they asked him, he also told them (my brother) Bobby name and he breathed his last in Apex hospital and the doctor declared him dead and then we brought him to the government hospital Palwal with the police. The doctor here also declared him dead and got his dead body kept in the mortuary. This incident with my brother was deliberately caused by the accused due to old enmity. About one and a quarter years ago, my t with the accused over playing, due to which all his family members came to our house with weapons to kill us. We had reported the matter to the police station. Later, the matter was settled in the Panchayat, but this entire family had enmity with us and they used to time. The accused are gangsters and quarrelsome people. Strictest legal action should be taken against the Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially, the , whereinafter, he was extended the on 21.01.2020 on account of juvenility. Thereafter, the to the custody on 27.05.2022 and is in continuous custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner has there is delay in culmination of trial and the same is not Learned counsel has further submitted that no ord to indicate culpability of the offence in question. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned 2 three other my brother reached there, Bhambal shoot him. Thereafter Bobby front. At that time I was also reached there and saw this incident with my own eyes and when I shouted they all ran away. I shouted and called my family members. Hearing this the neighbours ital in Ramkishan's Bolero car and on the way we informed the police station and the police took my brother's statement in which he told the police that Bobby S/o Narveer @ Pappu had shot him. After taking the statement the police said that you him to the doctor and they asked him, he also told them (my brother) Bobby name and he breathed his last in Apex hospital and the doctor declared him ital Palwal with the police. The doctor here also declared him dead and got his dead body kept in the mortuary. This incident with my brother was deliberately caused by the accused due to old enmity. About one and a quarter years ago, my t with the accused over playing, due to which all his family members came to our house with weapons to kill us. We had reported the matter to the police station. Later, the matter was settled in they used to time. The accused are gangsters and quarrelsome people. Strictest legal action should be taken against the initially, the , whereinafter, he was extended the Thereafter, the on 27.05.2022 and is in has there is delay in culmination of trial and the same is not Learned counsel has further submitted that no ord to indicate culpability of the by are serious in nature Learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-2586-2025 State counsel has further submitted that having fired shots upon the State counsel also submitted th towards culpability of the offence. 5. the available records of the case. 6. granted concession of bail surrendered back incarceration since then only 12 have been learned counsel for the parities, on merits of the case, issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. custody certificate dated petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than years and 09 concession of regular bail to the petitioner, petitioner was initially continued in his favour since 27.05.2022 2025 (O&M) State counsel has further submitted that there is clear allegation of having fired shots upon the victim, which resulted in his death. State counsel also submitted that ballistic report towards culpability of the offence. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was initially arrested on 18.06.2016 granted concession of bail on 21.01.2020. Thereafter, surrendered back to the custody on 27.05.2022 incarceration since then. Total 31 prosecution witnesses have been cited have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar learned counsel for the parities, on merits of the case, shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than years and 09 months. At this juncture, this Court is inclined to grant concession of regular bail to the petitioner, petitioner was initially extended concession of bail on 21 continued in his favour since 27.05.2022, but the 3 there is clear allegation of petitioner victim, which resulted in his death. Learned ballistic report in question also indicates rival parties and have gone through initially arrested on 18.06.2016 and was . Thereafter, he is stated to have on 27.05.2022 and is in continuous custody prosecution witnesses have been cited and The rival contentions raised at Bar by learned counsel for the parities, on merits of the case, give rise to debatable shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 06 juncture, this Court is inclined to grant concession of regular bail to the petitioner, firstly, for the reason that the extended concession of bail on 21.01.2020, which , but there is nothing to show the 3 petitioner Learned in question also indicates parties and have gone through and was he is stated to have custody and by give rise to debatable shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the As per learned State counsel, the 06 juncture, this Court is inclined to grant , for the reason that the .01.2020, which g to show the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-2586-2025 same having been misused incarceration of 06 years and 09 months and the prosecution evidence is yet to be concluded. stated to be involved in ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a c bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of RCR (Criminal) 477 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- 2025 (O&M) same having been misused; secondly, the petitioner incarceration of 06 years and 09 months and the prosecution evidence is yet to be concluded. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 02 more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following (i) The petitioner shall not mis 4 , the petitioner has suffered total incarceration of 06 years and 09 months and the prosecution evidence is yet Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the ase is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, imposed by the concerned trial /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. 4 has suffered total incarceration of 06 years and 09 months and the prosecution evidence is yet Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the ase is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the U.P. ; a Division Bench judgment of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) 2022 , decided on 29.11.2021, and Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-2586-2025 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complaina petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 24, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 (O&M) (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay trial. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5 The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. in any manner try to delay the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the nt shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 5 before the the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station prior the In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the nt shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment