CRM-M-39136-2026 1 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39136-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 PARDEEP @ MATHA ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Saksham Malhotra, Advocate with Mr. Sukhdev Singh Bhoria, Advocate and Ms. Manju Rani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present 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 in case FIR No. 60 dated 20.02.2026, registered under Sections 109(1), 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (with Section 61(2) BNS added subsequently), corresponding to Sections 307, 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (with Section 120-B IPC added subsequently), and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 19.02.2026 at about 9:30 PM, the complainant, Amit, had accompanied Rahul to a liquor and wine shop at Jakholi Stand, Kaithal. While Rahul had gone inside the shop, the complainant remained seated in the car. At that time, accused Sandeep KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39136-2026 2 allegedly arrived and fired two shots at the complainant with a country-made pistol, which initially missed. Thereafter, the complainant fled from the vehicle, whereupon Sandeep, along with co-accused Ankit Saharan and two unidentified persons, allegedly chased him while continuously firing. It is alleged that near the Anaaj Mandi, Sandeep fired multiple shots from a distance of about 25 feet, one of which struck the complainant on his right arm. The accused thereafter fled from the spot while allegedly extending threats to kill the complainant. Upon receipt of information regarding the firing incident, the police reached the spot and shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Kaithal, where he was medico-legally examined. After the attending doctor declared the complainant fit to make a statement, his statement was recorded on 20.02.2026, on the basis of which the present FIR came to be registered 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him either by the complainant or by any eyewitness. Learned counsel further submits that though the prosecution claims that the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Kuldeep, a perusal of the disclosure statements does not reveal any reference to the petitioner. It is further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and there is no independent material, such as CCTV footage, call detail records, mobile location, forensic evidence or eyewitness account, connecting him with the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that the petitioner voluntarily joined KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39136-2026 3 the investigation and was thereafter formally arrested. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.02.2026, the investigation stands concluded, the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. 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 22.07.2026, 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 months. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner has been nominated during the course of investigation and considering the gravity of the offence, involving an attempt to commit murder by use of firearms, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 7. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has remained in custody since 22.02.2026. Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR and implicated during investigation. The prosecution case itself is that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused. It is also not disputed that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. No specific attribution has been made against the petitioner. The investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39136-2026 4 Trial Court, and the charges have been framed. However, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Consequently, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. 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. 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. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39136-2026 5 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. 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 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-39136-2026 6 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 23.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh