CRM-M-66910- IN THE H SATYAM @ ATU STATE OF HAR 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. N MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections Nyaya Sanhita, 20 Station Mahesh Na -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ATUL AND ANOTHER Versus
HARYANA AND OTHERS he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Munish Behl, Advocate for the pe Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed by atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.54 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 35 ita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sect esh Nagar, Ambala. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-66910-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioners ...Respondent served 24.02.2026 onounced 26.02.2026 loaded on the 26.02.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioners by the petitioners under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant No.54 dated 24.02.2025 registered 3), 351(3) and 62(2) of Bharatiya d Section 25 of Arms Act at Police M) s
dent ction grant tered atiya olice AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66910- 2. The complainant Amit photographer shop sitting inside. In Vansh and Gaur complainant reach the complainant, o assailants opened of them sustained firearm injury upo away from the sp were admitted i proceedings were Harsh were arre admitting their inv and got recovered Sumit Kumar @ and sword used present petitioners on 10.04.2025 an respectively. They the crime and also accused were also -2025 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was reg t Amit alleging therein that on 23.02.2 r shop of his brother in village Baby e. In the meanwhile, the accused Ha Gaurav along with 15-20 other c t reached there, armed with weapons. nant, on hearing which, Sahil came o pened an attack upon both of them wi tained injuries. Accused Vishal Sonk ry upon them but they had a narrow the spot while extending threats to th tted in the hospital. After registr were initiated. The co-accused Raj arrested on 27.02.2025. They su eir involvement in the crime and dema overed the sword used in the crime. ar @ Sumit Mehra was arrested and used in the crime. On his supplemen tioners were nominated as accused. Th 025 and thereafter petitioner No.1 . They suffered disclosure statements nd also demarcated the place of occur e also arrested. Investigation now stan s registered on the statement of 02.2025, he was sitting outside the e Babyal. His friend Sahil was also sed Harsh @ Harish, Sumit Mehra, ther companions unknown to the pons. They started hurling abuses to came outside the shop and then the em with an intent to kill them. Both l Sonkar fired 4-5 shots with some arrow escape. Thereafter, they fled to the lives of both of them. They registration of FIR, investigation Rajesh @ Vansh and Harish @ ey suffered disclosure statements d demarcated the place of occurrence rime. Subsequently, the co-accused d and got recovered .32 bore pistol lementary disclosure statement, the ed. The petitioner No.2 was arrested No.1 was arrested on 17.06.2025 ments admitting their involvement in occurrence. Subsequently other co- w stands concluded. t of the also , the es to n the Both some fled They ation h @ ents ence used istol , the ested 2025 in - AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66910- 3. It is been falsely impli accused which can not named in the F co-accused have deserve to be ext cannot be conside continued detentio that the petition de 4. Status keeping in view th and the fact that t many other cases therefore, stressed 5. This C for both the parties 6. The unlawful assembly have caused injuri However, no spec Sumit Kumar, Ga @ Harsh have alr -2025 (O&M) 3 It is argued by learned counsel for implicated in this case on the basis ich cannot be considered to be admis n the FIR. No specific role has been have already been extended benefit be extended the same benefit. Thei onsidered to be a reason for denying etention would not serve any useful pu tion deserves to be allowed. Status report has been filed. Learned iew the gravity of the allegations as l t that the petitioners are habitual offe cases, they do not deserve to be ex ressed that the petition does not deserv This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioners are alleged to hav sembly with the co-accused and in pro injuries to the complainant and the v specific injuries have been attribut ar, Gaurav Baggan, Pardeep @ Paddu ve already been extended benefit of el for the petitioners that they have basis of disclosure statement of co- admissible in evidence. They were been attributed to them. Most of the enefit of bail. On parity, they too Their involvement in other cases nying benefit of bail to them. Their eful purpose. It is, therefore, argued earned State counsel has argued that ns as levelled against the petitioners al offenders as they are involved in be extended benefit of bail. It is, deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel o have formed membership of an in prosecution thereof, is alleged to d the victim with intent to kill them. ttributed to them. The co-accused Paddu, Parmeet @ Mih and Harish efit of bail. The petitioners are not have - were f the too cases heir gued that s ed in It is, nsel f an ed to hem. used arish not AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66910- required for furth conclude as no involvement in ot Keeping in view t been attributed to and the attendant opinion that no us custody anymore. ordered to be rele surety bonds to Magistrate/Duty M 7. In th conditions, the re seeking cancellatio 8. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 9. Since any, is rendered in 26.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 further investigation. The trial w s no prosecution witness has bee t in other cases cannot be a ground to view the nature of the allegations, the ted to the petitioners and they were no endant facts and circumstances, this t no useful purpose would be served b more. Accordingly, the petition is a be released on bail subject to their s to the satisfaction of the learne uty Magistrate concerned. In the eventuality of breach of the respondent-State shall be at lib cellation of the bail. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
rial will take considerable time to s been examined so far. Their und to deny benefit of bail to them. ns, the fact that no specific part has ere not even named in FIR, on parity s, this Court is of the considered erved by detaining the petitioners in n is allowed and the petitioners are furnishing personal as well as learned trial Court/Chief Judicial h of any of the aforementioned at liberty to move an application vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
e to heir hem. t has arity ered rs in s are ll as icial oned ation y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.