CRM-M-22114-2025 -1- 238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22114-2025 Date of Decision:27.05.2025 DEVENDER ALIAS DEBU …PETITIONER VS. STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.216 dated 06.07.2024, registered under Sections 103(1), (Section 3(5) BNS deleted later on and Section 61(2) of BNS added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the petitioner has been named in the FIR, but no overt act has been attributed to him. In the present case, Dinesh since deceased had suffered only one fire arm injury, which was attributed to main accused S.P. @ Shiv Kumar. Even during the course of investigation, the police found that the petitioner had also reached VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-22114-2025 -2- the place of occurrence on a motorcycle and was simply present there. Apart from that, no other evidence was found against him. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 18.07.2024 and is in custody since then. Even the challan has been presented against him and no witness has been examined so far. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was involved in a serious crime and had actively participated in the commission of murder. He further submits that the petitioner has been involved in one more case under Section 323 and 325 IPC. However, he is on bail in the said case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 10 months and challan has been presented against him. Moreover, as per the admitted stand of the prosecution, the petitioner had not caused any injury to anyone and was simply present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution is yet to lead evidence with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the present case. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. 27.05.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order