CRM-M-35695-2025 -1- 244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35695-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 Sonu ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Dr. Jaiveer Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) CRM-25838-2025 Allowed as prayed for. Main case 1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for grant of regular bail in a case FIR No.58 dated 04.03.2024 under Sections 148, 149, 307, 452 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Sachin. It was alleged by the complainant that on 03.03.2024 at about 11:00/12:00 p.m., he went to attend a wedding of Baljeet’s son and daughter. When he was coming back home, Vikas, Dhoop Singh, Sonu (petitioner) came in a camper car and started abusing him. He got scared and ran back inside Baljeet’s house. Then Vikas, Dhoop Singh, Sonu, Ravi and Manish all five entered into the house of Baljeet Singh. Vikas @ Kashi opened fire with intention to kill him, which hit one Sharvan on his left leg. Thereafter, Sonu fired from his pistol, which hit on the right leg of one Gulshan. After causing injuries, all those boys SHARMILA DEVI 2025.07.15 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-35695-2025 -2- escaped from the scene of occurrence. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 23.03.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.07.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Kapil @ Ravi. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 12.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-5440-2025, whereby, co- accused Kapil @ Ravi has been granted regular bail by this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner has been alleged to have fired at Gulashan, which hit him on his right leg. He submits that all the injured have already been examined and the petitioner is not involved in another case of the same nature. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2024. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail. 4. Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Kapil @ Ravi. He has submitted that out of total 40 prosecution witnesses, 24 witnesses including the all injured have been examined. He has placed on record the custody SHARMILA DEVI 2025.07.15 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-35695-2025 -3- certificate of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 23.03.2024. Co-accused, namely, Kapil @ Ravi is on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with him. On instructions from SI Umesh Singh, he submits that out of total 40 prosecution witnesses, 24 witnesses have been examined. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 03 months & 18 days as on 14.07.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case, however, is on bail in that case. 6. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 8. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 15.07.2025 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2025.07.15 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC