CRM-M-68901 IN THE H (246) DEEPAK STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. M Mr. A Mr. MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 25( and Section 111(2 Faruukhnagar, Dis 2. As pe received to the ef present near Dabo be apprehended w a raiding party w informer identified On conducting s 68901-2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Mudit Johar, Advocate and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.023 ns 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 ( 111(2)(b) of BNS, 2023 have been ad ar, District Gurugram. As per the allegations, on 14.08.20 the effect that the petitioner being a r Dabodha Mod, Faruukhnagar and if ded with illicit weapon. Believing the rty was formed which reached at the entified the petitioner from some dista ting search, 01 countrymade pistol JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-68901-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
te for the petitioner aryana by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 0235 dated 14.08.2025 registered 1959 (Section 29(b) of the Arms Act een added later on) at Police Station .08.2025, a secret information was eing armed with illicit weapon was and if raid was conducted, he could ing the secret information to be true, at the informed place. The secret e distance and he was apprehended. pistol and 01 live cartridge was M) 2026 ction grant tered s Act ation was was ould true, ecret ded. was AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68901 recovered from co licence or permit f also taken into cus 3. It is falsely implicated is in custody since stands concluded. anymore. His inv for denying ben deserves to be allo 4. Status counsel has argued a habitual offende There are chances benefit of bail. allowed. 5. This C at considerable len 6. The p concluded. It is o produced during t of offence punisha 68901-2025 (O&M) 2 om conscious possession of the petitio ermit for keeping the same. He was fo to custody. Investigation now stands It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h y since long. He is not required for fu luded. No purpose would be served is involvement in other cases cannot benefit of bail to him. It is, there be allowed. Status report and custody certificate h argued that there are serious allegation ffender as he is involved in 04 more ances of his committing similar offen ail. It is, thus, argued that the pet This Court has heard the rival submis ble length. The petitioner is in custody since 14. It is only on the basis of thorough ass ring trial that any conclusion as to unishable under Section 111(2) of BN petitioner. He failed to produce any was formally arrested. Weapon was tands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He for further investigation as the same served by detaining him in custody cannot be considered to be a reason , therefore, argued that the petition icate have been filed. Learned State egations against the petitioner. He is more cases registered against him. r offences or absconding, if extended he petition does not deserve to be ubmissions made by both the parties ce 14.08.2025. Investigation stands gh assessment of the evidence to be his involvement in commission of BNS can be drawn. The offence any was been . He same tody ason tition State He is him. nded o be rties tands to be ssion ence AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68901 under Section 25( involvement in ot settled proposition conviction sentenc the jail is to secu preventive or puni without meaning t of the considered o the same is allowe his furnishing per satisfaction of the concerned. 7. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 8. Since any, is rendered in 16.02.2026 Amit Sharma

68901-2025 (O&M) 3 on 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act is triable b t in other cases, he cannot be denied osition of law that pre-trial incarcerati entencing and bail is the rule and jail o secure appearance of the accused r punitive. Taking into consideration ning to make any comment upon the dered opinion that the petition deserve allowed and the petitioner is ordered to ng personal and surety bonds to the of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

iable by Magistrate. Because of his enied concession of bail. It is well rceration shall not be replica of post- d jail is an exception. The object of cused during trial, and it cannot be eration the above discussed facts but n the merit of the case, this Court is eserves to be allowed. Accordingly, ered to be admitted to bail subject to to the extent of 02 sureties to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
f his well - ct of t be s but urt is ngly, ct to the trate t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.