CRM-M-34043-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 CRM-M-34043-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Aman Rajpoot @ Pakodi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in FIR No. 69 dated 15.02.2024, registered under Sections 395 and 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula. The previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2025. 2. The case as set up by the prosecution is that on 15.02.2024, accused Sahid, Gurpreet, Vipin and Raj had entered into the shop of the complainant Gurinder Pal Singh, had fired shots at him and on raising clamour by the complainant and on gathering of neighbours, had fled away from the spot. They were arrested on 21.02.2024. Accused ‘R’, who was a juvenile in conflict with law, was detained on the same day. He suffered a disclosure statement, on the basis of which, the petitioner was nominated as MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34043-2025 (O&M) -2- an accused. He was arrested on 21.02.2024 along with other accused and suffered disclosure statement, on the basis of which, he got recovered one country made pistol along with one live round. Investigation now stands completed. The previous petition of the petitioner had been dismissed by observing that there were serious allegations against the petitioner, the complainant was yet to be examined and there was apprehension that he might intimidate the witnesses. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 21.02.2024. Co- accused Sahib, Vipin and Raj have been granted concession of bail. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. After dismissal of his previous petition, a period of more than 07 months has elapsed. There is no development in case as even charges have not been framed so far. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender as 11 criminal cases have been registered against him. There is no new or substantive change in the circumstances, thereby entitling him to seek concession of regular bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. The previous petition of the petitioner had been dismissed by observing that the complainant was yet to be examined. However, ever since MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34043-2025 (O&M) -3- then, even charges have not been framed. The petitioner is on bail in other cases registered against him. There is not likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. Above mentioned co-accused have already been granted concession of bail. As such, prolonged incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a case is made out for release of the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and on 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 or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall deposit his passport, if any, and shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO. (v) the petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34043-2025 (O&M) -4- for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 23.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document