CRM-M-34369-2026 1 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34369-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 SURYA PARTAP ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is being filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 506 dated 03.11.2025, registered under Sections 25(6) of the Arms Act, at Police Station Krishna Gate, Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1). 2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on 03.11.2025 on the basis of secret information received by the police to the effect that co-accused Rahul Malik was present near the parking area of Brahma Sarovar with an illegal weapon. Acting upon the said information, the police party conducted a raid at the spot and apprehended the said accused. During the course of search, one country-made pistol, magazine and five live cartridges were allegedly recovered from his possession. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, co-accused Rahul Malik disclosed that the recovered arms and ammunition had been supplied to him by the present petitioner after receiving an amount of ₹1,20,000/-. On the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34369-2026 2 basis of the said disclosure statement and the material collected during investigation, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case and was arrested on 08.01.2026. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner is involved in the illegal supply of arms and ammunition and is a member of an organised criminal syndicate. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been nominated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Rahul Malik. It is contended that, as per the allegations in the FIR, the recovery of one country-made pistol, magazine and five live cartridges was effected from the possession of co-accused Rahul Malik and no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the present petitioner. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and the prosecution case is based solely on the alleged disclosure statement of the co-accused, which requires appreciation during the course of trial. It is argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.01.2026 and is no longer required for any purpose of investigation as the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. 3.2 It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as all the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender and undertakes that he shall not misuse the concession of bail, if granted, and shall abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34369-2026 3 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that though certain other FIRs have been shown pending against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those cases and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty and prays that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of trial. 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 21.07.2026, 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 06 months and 13 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as he is involved in supplying illegal arms and ammunition and is stated to be a member of an organised criminal syndicate. Learned State counsel submits that the present case pertains to illegal supply of arms, wherein one country- made pistol, magazine and five live cartridges were recovered from co- accused Rahul Malik, who allegedly disclosed that the same were supplied by ₹ the present petitioner after receiving an amount of 1,20,000/-. It is further submitted that several other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, including cases under the Arms Act and other penal provisions, which reflects his criminal antecedents. 7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been implicated subsequently on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, alleging that the weapon recovered from the co- KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34369-2026 4 accused was procured from the petitioner, this Court finds that the role attributed to the petitioner is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial. It is further relevant to note that the investigation already stands concluded and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. This Court is also conscious of the fact that seven other cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which five cases pertain to offences under the Arms Act. However, mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner cannot, by itself, be a ground to decline the concession of bail, particularly when the investigation in the present case is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also relevant that the petitioner has remained in custody since 08.01.2026. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. 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 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34369-2026 5 purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 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 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34369-2026 6 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. 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 22.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh