CRM-M-16790-2026 -1- 225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16790-2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 DEEPAK ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate and Ms. Tanvir Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Surender Singh, Advocate for the complainant. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.265 dated 02.11.2025 registered under Sections 91(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(2) 109, 333, 117(2), 238 and 61(2) BNS, 2023 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, at Police Station DLF Phase-1, Gurugram. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Manish and the same are reads as under:- “Statement of Manish s/o Sh. Prem Singh, r/o Village Gwal Pahari, Police Station DLF Phase-1, Gurugram, Mobile No. 8587809611, who stated that he is a permanent resident of the above-mentioned address and that there are three siblings in his family, all of whom are married, while his youngest brother, Dhanraj, is unmarried; that their land is situated near Sun City, Gwal Pahari, where some rehri (temporary stalls) are KUSUM 2026.07.09 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-16790-2026 -2- installed from which they collect rent; that about 7-8 days prior, one Jai Prakash (JP) s/o Bihari, resident of Village Gwal Pahari, had gone to their rehri to collect illegal weekly extortion (hafta), during which an altercation took place between his uncle Kartar and the said JP; that 3-4 days thereafter, his brother Dhanraj and Jai Prakash (JP) again had a heated exchange on account of the same dispute; and that due to the said enmity, on 02.11.2025 at about 4:00 PM, when his brother Dhanraj was present at his shop namely Sachin General Store, at that time the sons of Jai Prakash, namely Prashant, Nishant, and Ashish, along with Piyush and Deepak and other associates, came to the shop and assaulted his brother with lathis and dandas, and thereafter, upon receiving information, he along with others reached the spot. Thereafter, we went to Gwal Pahari Road near the fodder (bhusa) place to talk to Satbir and his sons as well as Jai ran Prakash and his sons; my brother Dhanraj ahead of us while we were following behind, and when we reached near the red light on Gwal Pahari Road, we saw that Harender, Ashish, Jai Prakash, and Gullal were beating my brother Dhanraj, and at that very moment Harender s/o Satbir, with the intention to kill, fired directly at my brother from a pistol held in his hand, and the bullet struck my brother on his right arm; simultaneously, Satbir, with the intention to kill, rammed his Scorpio vehicle into my brother, as a result of which my brother's left arm was fractured; thereafter, Satbir along with his sons and Jai Prakash and Gullal fled from the spot in their Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HR 26EJ6576; during the quarrel at the shop, my grandfather's brother Jagdish s/o Sujan also sustained injuries; the said assault was carried out by Satbir and his brother (Jai Prakash and their sons namely Harender, Ashish, Prashant, Nishant, and Ashish, Piyush, Deepak and other associates, without any provocation and with the KUSUM 2026.07.09 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-16790-2026 -3- intention to kill, by firing a gunshot and by beating with lathis and dandas, and legal action be taken against them; Sd/- Manish.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place at two stages. In the first occurrence, the petitioner along with certain other persons caused simple injuries to the injured- Dhanraj and in the second occurrence, the co-accused of the petitioner attacked Dhanraj and one Harender S/o of Satbir, fired at Dhanraj and the bullet struck his right arm. One Satbir rammed his Scorpio vehicle into the injured-Dhanraj, causing him to sustain a fracture to his left arm. So far as the petitioner is concerned, no injury attracting Section 307 IPC has been attributed to him. As the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025 but none of the 27 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel and the counsel for the complainant contend that all the accused including the petitioner attacked the injured-Dhanraj causing him multiple injuries including one with a firearm. The nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession of bail as prayed for. They, however concede that the injuries caused by a firearm have been attributed to one Harender, that the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025 and that none of the 27 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. KUSUM 2026.07.09 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-16790-2026 -4- 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025 and that none of the 27 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 7. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Deepak S/o Munim is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other case/crime other than the present one. 9. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on their behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause. 10. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.09 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh