232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36284-2026 Date of Decision:13.07.2026 Sahil …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the second petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.283, dated 20.09.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(3), 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S,{corresponding Sections 307, 149,148,506 of IPC} and 25 (1-B)(a), 27 of Arms Act, later on added Sections 3(5) of B.N.S(34 of IPC), Police Station I.M.T Rohtak, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case and arrested on 22.09.2025. He further contends that initially the police had arrested the petitioner and Sunny in the present case, however, Sunny co-accused has already been granted the concession of bail by Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak, vide order dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-3). He further submits that in the present case, Amit, complainant and Rahul, injured had submitted their affidavits in favour of the HITESH 2026.07.14 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-36284-2026 -2 petitioner and apparently, the petitioner was falsely involved. Apart from that, the petitioner is a first offender and is in custody for the last about 10 months. Apart from that, the prosecution has been able to examine only 01 witness out of total 25 witnesses so far and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and the present petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 4. Ms. Anamika Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant by filing her Vakalatnama, which is taken on record and submits that she has no objection in case the present petition is allowed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. No doubt, the allegations levelled against the present petitioner are serious in nature, however, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 09 months. Even, the prosecution has been able to examine only 01 witness so far and the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is order to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 13.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2026.07.14 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh