-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225-2 CRM-M-33690-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025 SHAHJAD ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in FIR No.18 dated 14.02.2019 under Section 307, 285, 457, 380, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Buria, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that some unknown persons stopped the vehicle and fired 07 rounds towards the complainant party with an intention to kill them, however, none of the gunshot(s) hit anybody. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of his co-accused namely Wakib Ali. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends the petitioner is not named in the FIR and as such, has been falsely implicated in the present case. Sonia Puri 2025.08.21 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- He further contends that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 01 year, 02 months and 14 days. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the State by way of filing of custody certificate, vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail and does not refute the fact that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 01 year, 02 months and 14 days. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple cases. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 8. Keeping in view the above and the fact that the custody period undergone by the petitioner is 01 year, 02 months and 14 days; further no evidence is on record to connect the petitioner with the present case and since, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sonia Puri 2025.08.21 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- 10. It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, if the petitioner indulges in any offence or does not appear before the Court concerned in the cases pending against him, the bail so granted by this Court shall be considered as cancelled. 20th August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.21 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document