CRM-M-32954-2026 1 210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32954-2026 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 AMAN ALIAS KHANNA ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sahibjeet Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) CRM-25001-2026 The present application has been filed under Rule 3-A(I), Chapter VI, Part B, Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders, seeking leave to file the accompanying petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The applicant is granted leave to file the present petition. CRM-M-32954-2026 1. The present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0184 dated 05.11.2024, registered under Sections 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109(1), 3(5), 351(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 34, 506 and 120-B IPC), at Police Station Bond Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri. 2. As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant/injured Mohit. It is alleged that on 04.11.2024 at KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-32954-2026 2 about 07:45 PM, the complainant was attacked by the accused persons pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy. It is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, intercepted the complainant and fired gunshots at him with an intention to cause his death. It is the case of the prosecution that during the alleged occurrence, co-accused Rohit @ Gullu fired the first shot, which hit the arm of the complainant, whereas the second shot was allegedly fired by the present petitioner, which struck the complainant on his left hip. On account of the injuries sustained by him, the complainant was medically examined and, on the basis of his statement, the present FIR came to be registered.During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and the petitioner has been in custody since 19.12.2024. The prosecution has cited 22 witnesses in support of its case. Out of the said witnesses, 5 witnesses have been examined till date and the trial is presently pending before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence is made out against him from the allegations contained in the FIR. It is contended that the petitioner has no role in the alleged occurrence and the case against him is based only on the version of the complainant. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2024 and the trial is progressing at a slow pace. Out of the total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is argued that continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-32954-2026 3 3.2 It is further submitted that the role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that of co-accused Rohit @ Gullu and Sahil, who have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.02.2026 and 19.01.2026 respectively. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity. 3.3 Learned counsel contends that the injured/complainant has criminal antecedents and several criminal cases are pending against him, indicating previous enmity and the possibility of false implication. It is submitted that the petitioner is a young person of 23 years of age, a permanent resident of the area, and there is no likelihood of him absconding or misusing the concession of bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court, shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall cooperate with the trial. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as he is alleged to have fired upon the complainant/injured during the occurrence. Learned State counsel further submits that there is an apprehension that, if released on bail, the petitioner may influence the prosecution witnesses and may evade the process of law. 6. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. since 19.12.2024, and the fact that the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-32954-2026 4 investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, and out of the total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined till date, it is apparent that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Moreover, similarly situated co- accused has already been granted bail and right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner violates the said mandate. 7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In the present case, the trial is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-32954-2026 5 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-32954-2026 6 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 15.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.16 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh