Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 91463 (PNJ)

NAKSHATRA ALIAS NAKSHU v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/44582/2025 · 2025-08-19

Subhas Mehla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-44582-2025 1 104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44582-2025 Date of decision: 19.08.2025 NAKSHATRA ALIAS NAKSHU ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** SUBHAS MEHLA , J (Oral): 1. Petitioner has filed petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.206, dated 26.06.2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of BNS and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Rewari, District Rewari (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and except the disclosure statement, there is nothing on record against the present petitioner. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Learned State counsel stated that present petitioner played an active role in the commission of offence and he fired a shot from the illegal weapon upon the complainant’s daughter and extended threats whereafter, he ran away to Delhi and Noida. Learned MONIKA RANI 2025.08.22 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44582-2025 2 State counsel further submits that the present petitioner is involved in 08 other cases involving similar criminal activities. 5. Heard. 6. Keeping in view the antecedents of the present petitioner and the allegations that he supplied illegal weapons which was used in the commission of offence, his custodial interrogation would be required to trace the source of the illegal weapons. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 19.08.2025 monika 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No 2. Whether reportable : Yes /No MONIKA RANI 2025.08.22 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document