247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39087-2025 Date of Decision:29.07.2025 Sudhir Sharma @ Sudhir Raj Sharma …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No. 159, dated 17.06.2025, registered under Sections 287,49(1),351(2),3(5) of B.N.S and 25(1) (B), 27(2) of Arms Act, Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal (Annexure P-1). 2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Krishan Kumar son of Suresh Kumar and the same has been reproduced below:- “The contents of copy of complaint as follows: To The SHO Sahib. P.S. city Kaithal Sir. It is requested that I am Krishan Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, resident of Udham Singh Colony and do catering work. Yesterday on 16.06.2025 at around from my godown 9:00 am I going was Chandana Gate to my house in Udham Singh Colony, when I reached near Siwan Gate, I saw that HITESH 2025.07.29 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-39087-2025 -2 a person was driving his scooty in the middle of the road at a very slow speed. Despite blowing the horn repeatedly, he did not give me way. Then for some time I kept walking behind him, then that person stopped on the side. When I told him about not giving way, he told me that this is not your father's road and started abusing me, but because my wife and child were with me, I quietly went to my house. When I reached home, in the meantime that person had also come in front of my house. That person started abusing me in front of my house and he called his son and said to bring a gun from home, this bastard has to be shot. Meanwhile his son came to the spot with a gun. Alongwith him 1-2 people also came there on the spot, I came to know that the above mentioned person is my neighbor of the street. That person's son Abhiraj Sharma son of Sudhir Sharma resident of Udham Singh Colony pointed his gun towards me and fired at me with the intention to kill me. In which I narrowly escaped. Even after that his father Sudhir Sharma started saying that to shoot this bastard. The Abhiraj fired a shot in the air. Hearing the sound of the gunshot, many people came to the spot. Meanwhile Sudhir Sharma S/o Rajpal Sharma along with his son Abhiraj and 1-2 other persons fled away from the spot. I did not file a complaint in the police station at that time due to fear. Now I am filing a complaint on 17.6.25. Strict legal taken should be action against all the above persons. Applicant SD Krishan Kumar”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. Even, it has been alleged that the son of the petitioner had fired the shots in the air, but no one was injured in the present case. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 23.06.2025 and is in custody since then. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and the complainant are neighbours and with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. HITESH 2025.07.29 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-39087-2025 -3 4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that he has no objection, in case the present petition has been allowed as the parties have amicably settled all the dispute. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. The petitioner is stated to be in custody in the present case since 23.06.2025 and no one had suffered any injury in the incident. Moreover, the parties have entered into a compromise in the present case vide an affidavit dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 8. 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. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 29.07.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.07.29 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh