CRM-M-25554-2025 -1- 242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25554-2025 Date of Decision:15.05.2025 VINESH …PETITIONER VS. STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Surinder Singh Duhan, 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.241 dated 23.08.2024, registered under Sections 190, 193(3), 115, 118(1), 324(4), 333, 109(1) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023 & Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely involved only on the basis of suspicion subsequently. In fact, he was named by the complainant in his supplementary statement after several days of the occurrence. Even as per the complainant, Deepak and Naveen had fired shots from their respective country- made pistols, but no person had suffered any fire arm injury in the present case. VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-25554-2025 -2- He further submits that Pankaj, a similarly placed co-accused has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P- 3) and the petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 12.09.2024 and is in custody for the last more than 08 months. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail. However, he admits that there is no other case has been registered against him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that similarly placed co-accused, Pankaj has been granted the concession of bail by this Court. Moreover, Rahul, co-accused has also been granted the concession of bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-2). Thus, the further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-25554-2025 -3- (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned. (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. (v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court. (vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously. (vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. 7. In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard. 15.05.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order