CRM-M-37360-2026 1 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37360-2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 SUNIL ALIAS SHEELA ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Baljeet Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0395 dated 25.10.2020, registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (corresponding to Sections 324(4), 324(5), 109, 191(3), 190 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind, Haryana (Annexure P/1). Inadvertently, first petition has been mentioned in the prayer clause. 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that the complainant Ajay @ Nilima, along with his father, was travelling in his Bolero vehicle on 25.10.2020 when a white-coloured I-20 car came from the opposite side and blocked his vehicle near the bus stand of village Kharak Ram Ji. It is alleged that co-accused Sunil @ Sheela and Sachin, armed with pistols, alighted from the said vehicle and fired shots at the complainant with an intention to kill him. The bullet allegedly hit the complainant on his left KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37360-2026 2 shoulder after striking the windshield of his vehicle, while another shot fired by Sachin allegedly damaged the driver-side window of the vehicle. It is further alleged that 3-4 other persons were also present in the said vehicle and were carrying weapons. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled from the spot. The complainant was thereafter taken to the Government Hospital, Jind, where he was provided medical treatment and referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. On the basis of his statement, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity between the parties. It is contended that the allegations levelled by the complainant are exaggerated and are a result of the earlier dispute between them. Learned counsel submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the allegations of firing have been attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused Sachin; however, the alleged occurrence is a matter of trial and the culpability of the petitioner can only be determined after appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that no recovery of any weapon has been effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2020 and the investigation in the present case stands completed. The challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, particularly when the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further submitted that the present petition is the second petition for grant of regular bail before this Court, as the earlier petition moved by the petitioner was dismissed/withdrawn and there is no concealment of any material fact. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37360-2026 3 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 05 years and 08 months. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner is the main accused in the present case and specific allegations have been levelled against him. It is contended that the petitioner was named in the FIR and, as per the prosecution version, he had allegedly fired upon the complainant with a pistol with an intention to kill him. 6.1 Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and is involved in several other criminal cases. It is argued that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding absence of conviction in any other case is not correct, as the petitioner has already been convicted in one of the cases arising out of FIR No.107/2016 under Sections 147, 323, 452, 506 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jind, vide judgment dated 17.10.2022. 6.2 Learned State counsel further submits that the weapon used in the commission of offence, i.e. a pistol of .315 bore along with two live cartridges, as well as the vehicle allegedly used in the occurrence, were recovered from the petitioner. It is contended that there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding, influencing the prosecution witnesses and indulging in similar criminal activities if released on bail. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37360-2026 4 7. Be that as it may, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of incarceration. It is also not disputed that the investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and the petitioner is no longer required for any further custodial interrogation. It is further noticed that the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and is likely to take considerable time to conclude, as the examination of witnesses is yet to be completed. Keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve any useful purpose. However, considering the nature of allegations and the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to make sincere efforts to expedite the trial and conclude the prosecution evidence at the earliest. 8. 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 these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37360-2026 5 9. 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:- 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 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37360-2026 6 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. 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 16.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh